Allowing discussion on suspicious posts


That was me. I am surprised you feel this way, and I am sorry you do.

When I saw your post, I thought it would be helpful to make those changes. I see now I should not have made that assumption.

I have become more enthusiastic about this software, and like many on Forumosa, I am still getting the hang of it. And as I become re-acquainted with Forumosa this way, I find myself using it more and more. This seems to be shared by others because I see our traffic numbers gradually rise.

So from my point of view, while you may have considered a poll (and decided against it), I figured that you would not have thought of a multi-choice poll!

Once again, I apologize for presuming too much, and I will restrain myself going forward


If this person is a troll, he succeeded with the number of post we put outside of the post. The best trolling when you get the other peoples to turn hostile against each other for no reason.


A post was split to a new topic: From allowing discussion


I think it’s fair enough not to allow attacks, even on a suspicious post. Even if the post was intended as a wind up the fact that attacking replies are not allowed means that it is going to loose wind fast. So you don’t get the interwebs flame battle thing. Good job mods! Making the right decisions on having standards, thank you.


Yes except it was more legitimate questions about how is it possible to do this and that, and very little insulting and attacking was done in a particular thread. Most of it was very humorous actually and I was surprised how quickly the English teachers cottoned on (much earlier than I).
There was a suggestion to let it roll, but mods clamped down only on one side and it kicked this all off.

You know the old idea of insulting people’s intelligence, intelligent people are going to ask questions. Play a game expect to be played back.

I , personally , think there should be a disclaimer on this kind of stuff in the header IF doubts of veracity of said claims are summarily deleted everytime they appear.
Doesn’t seem balanced does it.

Also when people are claiming ‘abuse’ specifically you know where that can go right. Legal questions. Investigations. It didn’t quite get to that point but you know it had the potential (for instance if it was somebody who claimed to be a minor).
Where do you go with that?


So temp forum isn’t allowed discuss stuff.
Feedback forum isn’t supposed to be for feedback now?

Jeez! Feel like I’m back with the Christians brothers


Well I guess if you dont trust the honesty of a question then there is the option to just ignore it.
If no one responds then the thread is just like a spam email. Meaningless in the spam folder.


Confess, repent, take your penance, and all will be forgiven.

And keep your mitts off your willy.


The thing is, how do you define “bogus”. We’ve removed stuff that has been pretty obviously so on occasion, more than a couple of times. Sometimes it’s not so clear. Some things suggest it could be bogus, but some things mitigate that. What tends to happen in such cases is that people do raise questions, respectfully. Anyone should be able to see that there’s some doubt from reading such a thread, and can gauge their response, or lack of it accordingly. There has to be a balance. We don’t want to let people post questions for no reason, but we don’t want to turn away people with legitimate questions either. Unfortunately, posts in a format such as this don’t come with a “USDA-LEGITIMATE” stamp attached. If you’re looking for 100% certainty that you’re helping actual people in need of help, you’ll have to restrict your responses to people you can say that about with certainty. I don’t see how we can achieve it. We make these determinations the best we can, and there’s not likely to be 100% agreement about it in many cases. Under any circumstances we’re going to try our best to maintain a fair environment for all site members to post in. Allowing people to continually pepper someone with sarcastic questions or suspicions would be the functional equivalent of banning them, who’s going to stick around for that? That’s not the kind of environment we want to see here.



Re language, I’m also an English teacher, and I don’t find the proposition that you can teach yourself a language to near native speaker level incredible. If you want to start a general discussion of that topic in another thread, please do. :slight_smile:

Re legal issues, if someone is crying wolf, that’s obviously a needless distraction, like many other things online and offline. If we receive a complaint that a post is defamatory, we will of course look into it and remove it if that seems the most prudent thing to do. But if the person accused of being a wolf has never existed, and the claim doesn’t involve a threat to public safety and so on, it’s difficult to see how anyone stands to get in trouble, legally speaking.

If you can prove someone is a troll, maybe you can sue (in one country or another) for your precious time having been wasted. Great, make it a class action suit. Trolls will tremble in fear! The interwebs will never be the same! :runaway:

Until then, we will continue with our current system and wish you a pleasant day. :bowing:


Mods need to chill and quit deleting/editing/adding to our posts. I agree w/ Chocolatier 100%.

It’s only text, but it’s a bit creepy because I’ll read a post and then I’ll do a double take to see if that was me that wrote it.


Damned, those god-darned eengrish teachers is too smarts!

For the record, I agree with ‘Brianjones’, about the topic in question.