You’ve completely missed the mark on which subforum you're posting in here. Look, the Politics section doesn't have regional breakdowns, but if you're really dying to have one, you could always start a specific thread for politics regarding the West Coast—you know, topics covering places like Miami, Maui, or wherever else you feel like focusing—just like everyone else does.
It actually seems to me like your grievance is really aimed at the Beautiful our Washington, D.C. subforum rather than this one.
Nicole Collins13 said:And who gets to decide who fits that description? Are we all supposed to head over to Anderlon's place for an interview? Should I send over my resume?
Look, you haven't just arrived yesterday; do you have any idea how many posts have been wiped, or how many trolls swoop into a thread just to derail the whole conversation? Why are you trying to twist my words—you know exactly who you're dealing with, don't you? You've been around here long enough to realize you aren't some wide-eyed newbie, and it's obvious to everyone that you simply rub certain people the wrong way, even if my definitions feel a bit clumsy or poorly phrased. So go ahead, rephrase it if you must.
My definition is based entirely on the dynamics between you all. If I see a user getting flagged by three or four regulars whose opinions I’ve actually followed and seen spark genuine debate among the rest of us, then I start paying closer attention to that person's tone. I try to balance things out by considering the possibilities: maybe they’re just having a bad day and acting out, maybe they’ll turn out to be brilliant in a different context, or perhaps they’re just finding amusement in poking at a group they wanted to join but ultimately didn't fit into. Eventually, time will reveal what the truth actually is.
Roger Robinson682 said:Well, I’ve been hanging around this site for years now, and I must say, I had absolutely no idea there was such a thing as a "forum elite." Maybe if you people would just cut back on the number of subforums available to us "peasants"—since we clearly don't have much of value to contribute anyway—and just build a private, gated section specifically for your "elite" crowd, everyone would be happy. The "peasants" would get their space, the "elite" could have theirs, and maybe then the numbers would finally satisfy everyone...🙄🙄
That’s just silly; when I used the term "elite," I was actually referring to those constructive users who actually contribute something meaningful to the discussions. Do you really feel left out by a definition like that? 🤷
Jeremy Diaz9 said:And I won't even bother asking any serious questions on certain PDF files. You aren't going to get any real answers anyway, because I guess nobody is foolish enough to offer their expertise for free on a forum that actually charges a membership fee. We have actual professionals here who spend their time giving out free advice to people. So now I’m just wondering who exactly is doing all that work while everyone else makes the money. On top of that, instead of offering moderation duties to these serious, expert individuals—which would actually combine utility with a decent user experience—you choose to leave a bunch of frustrated types wandering around acting like they own the place just because they hold a moderator badge. Honestly, you really ought to use your heads for once!
If you weren't so completely obsessed with whether everything is "fair" or constantly airing your grievances, you'd easily fit right in with the forum's elite—the very group we’re trying to protect so they can exchange ideas without being interrupted by every random troll looking for attention.
It’s all connected, really, so it doesn't even have to be about Jergović; I mean, tomorrow Dežulović will probably churn out something just as similar, and then what? Are we honestly going to start an entirely new thread over it again?
Wait, didn't we just have a discussion about journalists less than a month ago? So why isn't this post about Jergović tucked away in that thread instead of starting an entirely new one? 🤷
Why don't you just start a new thread over in the off-topic section? And honestly, while we're on the subject, maybe you could do me a little favor too—it wouldn't hurt if you stepped in every once in a while to help expand my application with some extra details, since, let's face it, I'm still pretty much an amateur at this stuff.
Go ahead and open it up; I’ll personally migrate all the worthwhile posts and links over from that other thread so we can start with a completely fresh, organized topic.
Just a heads-up, though—any drifting off-topic, unnecessary sidebars, or pointless bickering will be met with a penalty, and I'm not just talking about simple deletions.
Sarah Wilson95 said:😕 well, I was just quoting you.
My apologies, everyone, but it’s starting to feel like all the moderators have to pick a side—either you're a total hero or a complete Nazi—and honestly, I’m just feeling a bit frazzled by it all. I feel like a moody teenager who's completely lost her sense of self. 😁
Don't even think about paraphrasing my posts. If I had gone on to mention the Chetniks, the Circassians, or the Belgrade extremists... Half of them wouldn't have had a clue what I was even talking about. Honestly, I think I'm being much clearer this way, don't you?
A crime is a crime, plain and simple. Extrajudicial killings—just taking someone out without a trial? That’s a crime, period. And when it comes to children, they are civilians, hands down, regardless of whose side they were on.
What’s actually wrong with a statement that’s backed up by a newspaper quote, even if it happens to be some low-rent tabloid? Honestly, maybe that kind of sensationalism is exactly what we need right now—it at least provides a target, a chance for someone to step up and set the record straight. But there's a catch, isn't there? We have to stop making these things personal. There ought to be a universal rule that applies to everyone, regardless of which side they were on in past wars, that we simply don't drag families through the mud.
EDIT: I realized I completely glossed over the historical context of that quote. Since modern historians still haven't reached a consensus on events that happened so recently, I suppose we should probably skip the history section of the forum for now.
Honestly, looking at how politicians operate these days, they’ve already become quite skilled at the art of argumentation—and for those who haven't quite mastered the craft yet, I'm sure they'll pick it up soon enough. Besides, do we really need some sanitized forum governed by a strict "zero tolerance for insults" policy? You don't learn how to actually hold a conversation or debate effectively by reading a disclaimer in an advertisement; you learn it through the grit and reality of real discussion.
Let’s kick off a new thread here on Politics where we can start documenting every single site used during World War II—covering both the Nazi atrocities and the partisan actions alike—complete with direct links to historical records, archives, and books, just so we can strip away any biased, fanatical arguments from the mix.
The idea is this: we provide a summary and the primary sources, and then we move into actual discussions regarding the historical, social, psychological, or even geostrategic reasons behind specific crimes. But let’s be clear—I want this done without the unnecessary emotional outbursts, because I have no interest in watching people turn this into a "your side vs. my side" shouting match or some endless cycle of bashing one faction against the other...
I actually went ahead and wiped out dozens of posts from this thread that were basically just acting as collaborators, but honestly, karma caught up with them... bam, justice served.
And if you look at the latest reports, the victims weren't just one specific group. Even over in the Midwest, they're announcing further investigations—it turns out that old territory under the former regime was quite the mess.
I was actually considering moving this over to the discussion about the Nazis & Partisans, because honestly, you just can't seem to scrub the off-topic tangents and the constant derailments from here, which is such a shame, but she just dove in way too emotionally.
How often are you actually showing up, how many hours are you putting in, what kind of budget are we talking about here, and what’s your setup looking like in terms of machinery and gear?
If you're just thinking about planting out in the field, I might head out to the ranch once every couple of years, but if you're trying to run an indoor grow operation, there is absolutely no way to pull that off without being there on a daily basis.
Beyond that, you really have to weigh all the other factors—labor costs, secondary facilities, oversight, transportation logistics...
Charles Ramirez59 said:Interesting idea, though I should probably warn you upfront—while the suggestion is definitely constructive, it's not going to happen.
The admins (working alongside Anderlon as the head) prefer maintaining control over who becomes a moderator. Moderators are given enough authority to completely derail a sub-forum, and that isn't a level of influence we're looking to relinquish. I’m not saying every moderator has been perfect or that every decision was a stroke of genius 😳, but I believe it’s better if we select our moderators rather than letting them be chosen based on popularity contests.
Let's be honest: moderation isn't exactly a popularity contest. It shouldn't be about being liked—moderators need to steer discussions, prune off-topic posts, manage insults, lock threads, and ultimately ban those who repeatedly break the rules or disrupt the flow. Mods essentially act as the police, and how many people here actually enjoy the police, especially when they pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt or 12 miles speeding? 😬
People who land the job through sheer popularity would either fail to enforce the rules just to stay liked, or they'd do their jobs properly and lose that popularity because they'd eventually have to ban friends or supporters. 😁
So, as I said, the proposal won't pass. That said, I really appreciate seeing constructive ideas like this, even if they don't go anywhere. Thanks for the thought and for posting. 👍
As far as I'm concerned, this topic is settled, but I won't lock it myself—I'll leave it to the moderators to decide if it needs to be closed. Feel free to keep talking about it if you want, but just keep in mind that I don't intend to get drawn back into the debate; the decision has already been made.
I agree with everything said, and I'd add that our software doesn't even support automatic voting. If a proposal like this were ever actually adopted, we'd likely have to establish some kind of independent commission made up of users, which would just lead to people forming lobbies and playing politics all over again...
Rachel Brooks63 said:Not at all—I mean, why would I even bother showing up to this forum 😕 if it wasn't for the food talk 😬?
We're talking about Bank of America here, after all. 😉
Look, just hang in there; we’re right up against Christmas, and once the elections roll around, things will settle down and won't be quite so hectic, so you'll be fine in a few weeks—even for kids who actually need to stay informed. You know me, I live with a teenager :nema_primjerenog_smajlića and yet somehow I haven't succumbed to any kind of postpartum fog myself. 😁 😁
Seriously, can you people really not help yourselves when it comes to posting such mindless garbage? Get your heads out of the sand, because I’m one step away from wiping the whole lot of you off the map.