The Barisone threads

I noticed that a lot, maybe all, of the Barisone threads were just “archived.”

What does that mean? Is it so that people can’t go back to edit or delete their posts?

My guess on archived is they are there to read, but not active any more.

On this platform closed thread still allow for editing of posts. Archiving does not. We archived them instead as we had debate being continued on closed threads via post edits.


Is this some new feature? I don’t recall seeing this before.

Thank you Mod1 for explaining this!

1 Like

Yes! This software gives that little thread summary under the OP of each thread. It highlights the most frequent posters as well as other thread stats. When a thread is longer, that box also offers an option to “summarize” the thread by condensing it down to, I believe, posts that received the most likes…might be some other metrics that feed into the algorithm too.


Is there a feature to view the “most flagged,” posts, or “least liked,” posts? Is there a feature which refers users to posts which Coth allows for inciting violence or encouraging the thought that attempting murder on two people is “just karma coming around?” Here, I will share a few examples of these posted by user “Eggbutt,” as well other posts with less “likes,” but are fact based with evidence, or, posts which provide misinformation well known to Coth as being misinformation, yet allowed to remain posted.
Hopefully, @Moderator_1 can review these few examples 1 by 1 and determine whether some of these examples do, in fact, incite violence & encourage users to believe a murderous act is the natural way to resolve a dispute in the Equestrian world. Let’s begin with this:

1 Like

Then, perhaps could you explain this? I’m confused? If @Moderator_1was concerned that posters were “continuing to debate,” on “closed threads,” so they were “archived,” - is there a reason the threads were open again for a short time, then closed again, then archived again? Here is one such example:

And, on the topic of which user begins these threads, perhaps that user has shared her real identity here on this BB. Does a screenshot taken from this BB which provides this information from the user herself, violate COTH TOS if that very same screenshot is posted publicly?

This (above) is the user who has started the vast majority of the Mb/Lk threads, as you know. However, screenshots taken a year ago indicate this user has started almost every MB/LK thread. Now, (and I’m confused as to how this has been allowed) screenshots of the OP user have changed. For example, the OP for each thread used to have a green “E” (signifying user “Eggbutt” began it) & now, many seem to show a different user as the “OP.” Does this occur when the OP edits or deletes her OP and asks another user to copy and paste the same OP - using this separate posters user handle?

I will post screenshots of this phenomenon to better display my question/concern.

Again, (before I post other questions/concerns which will be followed with screenshots, as well, and there are many of both) is stalking encouraged in Coth TOS? In this below post, (flagged & ignored) a rough location of my home is posted, followed by an underhanded threat to my life. The reply to the post even begins with the word, “luckily.”

In a different post by your “most comments,” user, my actual street name and town was posted. Why has this user not been prohibited from posting for a time - or even banned for such conduct? Let’s begin with addressing my first paragraph. I will send the user info and post which disclosed my street name & town to the editor, so as to attempt to keep this shared but prohibited information private.

Paragraph 1 -

1 Like

I believe @Moderator_1 I have found the answer to my first paragraph’s concerns in the above post. Could this be the reason the poster who actually posted my street name etc, has not been admonished: (favoritism) Also, how would the quoted user know “apparently, many of my posts have been flagged, but were not considered rule breaking?” (Paraphrased, but here it is- along with another poster’s reply for good measure.)

I suppose Coth can show favoritism to whomever they please. My next question is, would Coth object to a new thread of posted screenshots of COTH’s “most valued users,” directly failing to comply with this:

woo boy.


I do not believe you can delete the OP itself to make someone else the OP. You can delete the content, but not the post itself.
An E in a circle could also be any number of other posters whose screen name starts with an E.

Edit to add:
@La-LaPopRider, I went and confirmed what I posted here. I found a thread I started and it does allow me to edit the original post, but deleting the post is not an option.


I agree, victim blaming and antagonizing victims shouldn’t be allowed on these forums. End of story.

CoTH is constantly publishing articles about the changing times, supporting victims and promoting supporting each other, but then they let the forums run rampant with victim blaming.

No other forum of this stature allows that. It’s clear one or two people spend way too much time obsessing over a certain poster here and it IS SUS and disturbing and the moderators could do with going back and reading all their posts and realizing they don’t make CoTH a nice place to hang out and their obsession is red flag that should be dealt with.


We recently learned about and starting using the archive feature of this software platform. That thread was mistakenly unarchived, but I don’t recall the exact circumstances of why. I believe it related to mistakenly thinking we had to unarchive to perform a moderation action. It was rearchived on Dec. 31 when we realized it was just closed and not archived, when we performed a search for Barisone threads to archive them all.

We generally wouldn’t penalize a user for referencing another user’s real-life identity if that user had chosen to make it public on the site. We might moderate a post containing personal information for other reasons…language, insults, gratuitous personal commentary, etc.

A user cannot remove in its entirety a thread that they have started (except in the Giveaways forum, and I believe the Announcements forum). They can edit a post that started a thread to change or remove its content, but they will remain listed as the OP of the thread. If another user copied and reposted an OP, it would start a new thread, and none of the posts on the original thread would carry over.

We review alerts on content made through the alert system, and we may act on some and not on others. We don’t moderate on factual accuracy of statements made and we do not agree with or like all comments made. We understand that users may not agree with moderation decisions, but we do our best to provide a forum for discussion of issues from different perspectives.


A vast majority of users of this forum have been portrayed publically and GLOBALLY in media as being evil, as bullies, as persons of lesser character and as having pummeled the person who was shot. And why? Because we dared to comment on a posting board of which we are members about an incident. To me the demonization of posters is also beyond the scope of acceptability and decency so maybe consider that as well.

And all this demonization of the forum users occurred WHILE WE OURSELVES WERE BEING BULLIED OR BULLYING WAS ATTEMPTED AND THREATS WERE MADE by the OP of this thread.

BTW, there is no crime in starting a thread. If there were the Mods are perfectly capable of handling it.


Bolding mine.

On the technical forum, a couple users (Scribbler and Sdel) explicitly asked how many times a poster needed to be flagged in order to be suspended. This led to the following thoughts.

If a group of posters used PM to communicate among themselves “We’re getting criticized by Equkelly for victim bashing, let’s get her riled up and then flag her posts to get her banned”, is that a strategy that could be used to manipulate the moderation?

Why do I ask? I am simpatico with Equkelly’s position pushing back at the LK hate, and she and I and perhaps one other user were attacked (as I perceived it) in a recent thread. Being a coward, I tucked my tail and dropped out. Equkelly stuck it out and lost her cool slightly. I think she included “FFS” in one post (just the letters). Anyway, the usual train wreck ensues and when the dust settles the two posters with the most offensive posts are still standing and Equkelly is gone.

Here’s the question. If the handful of posters who are likeminded with Equkelly, like me, refrain from flagging the truly offensive posts by Ambitious Kate, Idaho Rider, and Eggbutt, but a group of posters flag Equkelly for writing “FFS” (yes, I suspect there is a conspiracy via PM, based on Scribbler’s inquiry) is that why Equkelly is banned and Ambitious Kate is not?

I had been deliberately refraining from flagging posts, even if I thought they were offensive and violated the rules, in order to minimize the burden on the mods, but it now looks to me that by refraining from flagging the posts I find offensive and in violation of the rules, the result may be that the mods get lopsided feedback.

1 Like

The OP of this thread is Joanne.


Well, that is a nasty accusation. I don’t give a fig about what anyone says about me, so I don’t generally see the need to flag moderation for anything anyone says. I just junk things into my mental trash can and go on with my day.


I stand corrected. I meant to refer to LK

1 Like

It could also be that this is not the first time a poster has flown off the handle in an inappropriate way. Leeway may have been granted the first time, but not the second.

I don’t even know what thread you’re referencing with the “FFS” in it, but I do know your ol’ buddy has gone ballistic more than just that once.