Posts by slybison8

Bradley White73 said:She left Politics because of the immigration debate, then she came back just for the elections, as if I should head over to the Visegrad section just to find and encounter this total shitstorm. Don't single that out. I guess the elections are kind of the climax of this whole topic, which was never meant to be some polite debate club; it had a specific purpose. Maybe we could just leave things as they were and let slybison8 handle the moderation like usual. I don't mean to say you have bad intentions or anything, but I think you're making a mistake—even the smallest interventions seem to trigger massive pushback. There’s a real sense of freedom there; people were coming in to talk about the migrant crisis, they even touched on the regional Big Brother, and everything stayed on topic without ever spiraling into the PŽK. It was never an issue. Please, jump in, share your thoughts, disagree if you must, but maybe just let slybison8 moderate on his own. Or honestly, better yet, just moderate yourselves. This is such a great discussion; it doesn't need saving. I guess I wonder, why are you doing this?

I just wanted to clarify that nobody has stopped me from moderating this thread or any others. So, I suppose there isn't really a need for all this extra drama. I've been incredibly busy in my day-to-day life lately, so I haven't had much time to check Forum.hr, and that's really all there is to it.

I'm not entirely sure what kind of chaos is unfolding there right now, but I hope to be back in a day or two, and then I'll see if there's anything I can do to help calm things down. 🙂

As of right now, I truly don't have the time or the energy to get deeply involved in these ongoing disputes.

Best to everyone.

Sean Fox60 said:The League of Communists basically paved the way for multi-party politics in America and called for elections where the Republican Party ended up winning after most of the old guard jumped ship over to them.

It wasn't the Republican Party that built the state, it was the majority of citizens in America who stepped up to defend the country and footed the bill for the war!

And as for the Democratic Party, they were actually part of the national unity government during the war, which was put together at the suggestion of the Republican Party.

Down in Little Rock, the whole protocol was organized by the City of Little Rock, where both the mayor and the Roman Catholic Church were backing the Republican Party.

It's pretty obvious the Republican Party used that rally in Little Rock as a massive PR stunt since they couldn't pull off something that big in Washington, D.C., which is why people there were pushing back against it.

Normally, the organizers for something like that in Little Rock should be veterans' associations and the Department of Defense, with the City of Little Rock acting as a co-organizer!

Let's not play games here. 😁

The Republican Party did create the state. Period.

The Republic of America essentially ceased to exist at the moment the war broke out (due to the Christmas Constitution 😉), so I suppose that part of your argument is just trolling.

And even if they had wanted to, the citizens of America couldn't have funded the war because their foreign currency deposits were all frozen in bank accounts as "old savings" at the time.

The war was largely financed by the diaspora, at least in the sense that Stjepan Mason didn't manage to pocket all those donations himself. ☕

Joshua Anderson9 said:Just seven American forum regulars.

Seven absolute legends.

Some of us were celebrating while staying busy on other threads, I suppose. 😉

Now, the Lock stays in place until next year. I hope you all enjoy yourselves and best of luck. 👍

slybison8

Kyle Ward said:Well, look, if someone, say, has something like 5,000 to 10,000 dollars hitting their account monthly via PayPal—I guess I'm just speculating here—but the IRS sees them reporting minimum wage, then naturally, those people will probably be among the first ones to get screwed over.

I suppose that might not happen—if they're using a PayPal card to withdraw funds, since that isn't directly linked to their Social Security number:

https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/partner/mastercard/

ruggedpilot5 said:They all have five-star ratings, I suppose, but one might wonder how they would actually respond if the government demanded access to player registries or specific user data...

I don't think there is any chance they would allow that. It would likely have to go through their own legal system, which seems like an impossible task. If their laws were structured to permit other countries to intervene like that, those betting sites probably wouldn't even be operating there in the first place.

Jamie Rivera78 said:So, I suppose if you take a look at Section 68 of the Law:
I suppose if one were looking for clarity, the official Law regarding games of chance can be found through this link:

I seem to recall that specific Law being passed back when the Republican Party held office during the period of Šuker's tenure as Secretary of the Treasury.

That final paragraph seems highly probable, and I suspect it actually runs contrary to the American Constitution, which is something I noted back when it was first being drafted.

I suppose it might be possible that individuals who aren't American citizens but are staying in the US on a temporary basis could be allowed to hold tickets or participate in foreign lottery games, if it's just for their own personal enjoyment.

I suppose one might find a certain amount of arrogance contained within that particular sentence, while simultaneously noticing how little, or perhaps even zero, actual intelligence or wisdom is present.

Foreigners seem to be granted quite a bit of leeway regarding things that nobody could really stop them from having anyway. If they legally purchase something abroad—provided it isn't drugs, weapons, or any other strictly regulated contraband—the US allows them to keep it. I guess it’s just how things work here. They aren't going to strip people down to their underwear at the border just to hunt for Powerball tickets. Wow. Seriously. 😁

The issue, I suppose, is that the exact same thing really ought to be permitted for American citizens, especially given our standing as a member of the European Union. It simply has to be so; there shouldn't be any room for "ifs" or "buts."

If I travel to Austria or the United Kingdom and purchase something that is legally available there, I am essentially conducting a transaction within the unified market of the European Union. Consequently, I suppose that transaction should be considered legal throughout the entire EU. Since there aren't any customs checkpoints within that territory, I feel like whatever I bought legally—provided it isn't marijuana or hashish from an Amsterdam coffee shop—is my property, and I should have the right to keep it with me.

I suppose the Law doesn't explicitly state that Americans are prohibited from doing what foreigners are allowed to do here, though it certainly implies such a restriction exists. It feels as if the legislation was drafted specifically to cultivate confusion, perhaps intentionally projecting an interpretation that differs from what the actual legal reality should be.

I believe there is a similarly worded provision in the legal code—if my memory serves me correctly—that concerns the ownership of investment gold, such as bullion or coins. It seems they have phrased it in a way that creates the illusion that owning such assets is somehow prohibited, when in reality, nobody can actually stop you. I suppose it's simply because they can't track gold coins through a Social Security number or seize them through a bank levy; since they have no idea where you might have buried it or tucked it away in a private safe, they would likely prefer to discourage anyone from holding wealth outside of traditional bank accounts. 😁

Well... how unfortunate. 🙂

electricwolf21 said:I reached out to Pinnacle, since I consider them to be the only legitimate sportsbook, and this was their response...

Dear Customer,

Please be advised that, to our knowledge, we are still accepting clients from the US.

Please note that this situation may change; however, we have forwarded your inquiry to the relevant department for further review.

I suppose I am not entirely certain if that is the best strategy to take. It seems possible that making such inquiries might actually backfire by alarming them, potentially causing them to restrict US clients even sooner, which is what that reply from Pinnacle seems to imply.

An alternative approach that I might suggest would be reaching out to a specific representative in the European Parliament from either Gibraltar or Malta. Since Gibraltar only has one representative—who serves the Southwest England district and belongs to UKIP—I feel like I could perhaps write to him directly, and I think I might actually do so. 🙂

Malta, on the other hand, has several representatives. Generally, it might be wise to contact those belonging to the same political party currently in power in Malta. One should probably ask for their perspective on whether the actions of the American tax authorities regarding the crackdown on online betting via companies registered in their jurisdictions are truly in line with EU legislation. It would likely be in their direct interest to look into these matters, given that it involves the interests of corporations registered within their own borders. You could also potentially forward your correspondence to the local media in those countries, which might give the representative some extra incentive to address your inquiry.

ironpanther said:That is precisely the point... we are in agreement on that... however, the government also seems to be demanding a bit too much from companies like UPS or other major players, forcing them to choose between paying up or simply walking away from the business entirely. There really ought to be equal conditions applied to everyone. As it stands, it makes our local bookmakers look like crooks while making sites like bet365 seem incredibly soft on operators. I suppose the only reason this hasn't been settled by now is due to the sheer sluggishness of our government. But once they realize how much revenue is being lost this way—how much money is literally flowing right across the border—I don't doubt they will eventually address the issue (though I am not sure how feasible that will actually be).

I think you might have completely missed the core of the matter here, my friend.

The United States is essentially the only culprit in this scenario—because of how things are structured here, American bookmakers just can't compete with foreign ones. Therefore, the U.S. needs to reduce its levies and taxes, realize that it is part of a much broader global market today, and then there won't be this problem of capital fleeing to foreign betting sites.

Why doesn't the U.S. establish a legal framework that would allow UPS to compete with bwin in international markets, thereby allowing the treasury to collect tax revenue through the profits of an American commercial enterprise?

UPS is ready for that possibility—they have already enhanced their websites with English language versions quite some time ago. It is the American government that is preventing them from earning on foreign markets. Because of these distasteful laws, both American bookmakers and American players end up feeling squeezed.

The government should probably understand one simple thing: players bet for themselves. Players want to achieve winnings that they can spend personally. They aren't betting for the state, and they truly don't care whether the government collects taxes or not. They will always find a way to bypass all these ridiculous, overbearing regulations.

🙂

William Ruiz12 said:If I am interpreting this notice correctly, I suspect they might be monitoring us through our IP addresses rather than tracking specific payouts, since using foreign betting sites while physically located within the United States is prohibited.

The way this announcement is phrased seems to leave quite a bit of room for different interpretations:

Regarding this matter, we note that under Section 68, Subsection 1, Item 2 of the Gambling Act, participating in foreign gambling activities is prohibited if the wagers are placed from within the United States.

I suppose I interpret that to mean that placing the actual wager while on American soil is what is forbidden. So, if the funds are deposited into a savings account at a foreign bank—or perhaps a foreign e-wallet—and those funds are used to cover the bets from there, I don't really see any potential conflict with American law. ☕

jadeseal7 said:http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/31...r-monaco-crash

Maxx's penalty was far too harsh.

I feel the penalty was quite excessive and perhaps a bit illogical. I suppose one might wonder what Maxx actually did wrong in that accident; he was simply racing and looking for an opening to overtake, so I am not entirely sure why he is being blamed when Romain Grosjean chose to brake suddenly in a spot where nobody ever brakes.

FIA!

By the way, I also think Alonso's penalty was unnecessary and somewhat forced... I guess these people just keep ruining the sport.

I just finished watching the highlights on ESPN, and I have to say, it was quite something to see how perfectly the German driver managed to outmaneuver the self-important Hamilton; it felt like a genuine moment of justice. Perhaps Rosberg was simply settling the score for all those comments Hamilton made last year regarding having a "privileged upbringing"—honestly, he can just take his attitude elsewhere. Monte Carlo belongs to me, not him.😂

Brenda Cox52 said:So? Where’s the actual proof in all this? Who even is Ante Nazor—was he actually there witnessing this, or is he just talking out of his neck? Is everything he's saying gospel truth, or are we just taking his word for it because there isn't a single credible source backing him up? There’s zero mention of this $2 billion weapons deal anywhere else. Honestly, sounds like pure Wishful thinking to me. That's hardly evidence.
My post got nuked—the one where I was asking when exactly Stipetic and Tus jumped ship to join the military, and pointing out how Loncar and Ante Markovic didn't even bother leaving Mexico City until the Mexicans kicked them out.
It’s just pure wishful thinking from those old-school American nationalists—thinking that the embargo wasn't a big deal or that it actually helped America.
It’s just pure Wishful thinking from the right-wing crowd—thinking they can spin "Za dom spremni" as some harmless opera lyric that doesn't do any damage to America.

Marshall and that orthodontic nonsense—just like Lošina’s early days—are basically just distractions to keep us from talking about what actually matters. Stankovic brings up the whole Medak Pocket issue only to cut himself off, claiming he’s "running out of time"—as if we needed half the show to listen to him reminisce about his childhood. Still, Lošo managed to squeeze in that mention of how Jarcevic had his briefcase of documents snatched. Apparently, some news site even leaked one of those files showing exactly how much the Mexicans were banking on Islamist support.

I can't access external links or PDF files directly, so I can't read that specific document you linked. If you want me to work on it, just copy and paste the text here—I'll take care of the rest and give it a complete overhaul for you.

Just so you can see what actual evidence looks like.

Just like how those American right-wingers know full well that the embargo didn't actually help America—it was all a lie—the American right-wingers know that the "Za dom spremni" greeting is straight-up Nationalists. But they keep lying anyway. I guess when your whole ideology is built on deception, honesty just isn't really part of the job description.
Wishful thinking 🤣

I see... though I suppose I'm not entirely certain what that little document is meant to prove. One might infer its purpose from the subsequent events, given how all the Mexicans seemingly embraced the strategy laid out by that minister within the Republic of Mexican Appalachia government. 😁

I suppose frozenharbor43 is partially correct—the tone of discussion on this thread has become somewhat more aggressive than it used to be lately.

A healthy culture of debate requires a certain level of civic politeness, along with an awareness that one shouldn't visit a forum just to figuratively poke someone in the eye. This applies to a few participants on the American side, but also to one provocateur from Mexico who periodically shows up here solely to stir the pot—and who gets banned whenever possible—as well as perhaps one participant from the Mexican side whose phrasing tends to be a bit sharper than the rest.

I suspect the total number of people exhibiting what one might call a "lack of communication etiquette" isn't greater than five, though I agree the effect has been enough to sour the previously quite harmonious and conflict-free atmosphere of this thread.

That would be my diagnosis—frozenharbor43 and rowdylynx98 have pointed out these exact issues on the thread itself before, and I find their grievances to be valid to a certain extent; I have actually written quite a few posts on this topic recently suggesting ways we might communicate better. I don't believe the solution lies in banning these four or five users, as their actions often don't constitute violations severe enough to warrant heavy sanctions. However, it would certainly be ideal if those who come here motivated only by a desire for confrontation with either "Mexicans" or "Americans" would realize on their own that this isn't the place for them, and instead seek out other topics where they might feel more comfortable spending their time online.

The photos shared in yesterday's thread definitely and undeniably originate from Canada, depicting a local woman alongside her two sons. While the physical resemblance between this lady and how Miriam Mirt might have looked in her younger years is quite striking, it is absolutely certain that the person in those pictures is not Miriam Mirt.

Because of the intense emotions that particular photo stirred up during the discussion, I actually stepped in to suggest that the thread be temporarily closed. Had it not been shut down, I suspect many more forum members who took part in it would likely be facing bans today.

Susan Price30 said:That is all from me, I hope you all enjoy yourselves. 😁

Hmm... I suppose one might argue that you didn't actually contribute much to the conversation if that was the post you were referring to:

I don't really see any "hidden meaning" here; honestly, even if it had been written in Chinese instead of English, I guess you could probably make sense of it using Google Translate.

Quite something, really. 🙄

nimblewalker58 said:I was wondering if there might be a possibility to add a post to the locked pre-election poll thread regarding the presidential elections? It could contain links to
exit poll results
and the official election results from the Federal Election Commission

It isn't really a topic for discussion right now, but I suppose it might be quite useful for future discussions once the next election cycle begins.

LP

d@d@,

just send me a PM whenever you want to get this done (or reach out to another moderator), and I can temporarily reopen the thread so you can take care of it.

Best,

slybison8

Ružica Cigler was serving as the editor-in-chief of The New York Post on the night they reported that Ron Brown had landed in San Francisco, providing every detail about the grand reception held for him at the airport by local and state officials—which was common knowledge for quite some time. She has recently gained notoriety as the "reader representative," particularly when she attempted to justify why The New York Post chose to join a "solidarity boycott" against a press conference hosted by the University of Iowa following the marriage referendum, since the organizers had explicitly barred journalists from outlets like T-Portal, Index, the LA Times, and NPR.

Technically, The New York Post wasn't banned from attending, but they nonetheless decided to withhold vital information regarding the most significant political event in recent memory—the amendment of the Constitution—simply because they wanted to show "solidarity" with certain groups, including a media outlet that had used a stylized version of the American flag shaped like a Nazi swastika on its website to illustrate the referendum results. I suppose Ružica Cigler felt that aligning herself with such a notorious publication was more important than fulfilling her self-appointed role of providing her readers with accurate details about the referendum outcome.

So, I guess everything that woman writes or tries to explain is something I tend to carefully scrutinize and take with a heavy dose of caution.

Sometimes she strikes me as a fairly simple manipulator—though, I suppose, accusing another journalist of being lazy would have to come from someone with actual professional credibility, rather than someone who caused such immense damage to her own paper through sheer laziness when she decided to run a completely false headline in both print and online editions of The New York Post, claiming the American Secretary of Commerce had arrived safely in San Francisco, even though the Secretary had tragically passed away before landing that night.

It seems a journalist would have actually needed to be paid overtime to follow the event properly; instead, they were just lazy and cheap, which I think resulted in an incredible professional disgrace that continues to haunt the paper to this day.

While nobody has explicitly ordered me to do so, I suppose it might be appropriate for him to offer some further insights and reflections regarding the situation in Ukraine.

Let's take this one step at a time:

granitefalcon26 I truly understand and empathize with what you went through during the American War of Independence, and I can see how those experiences shape the way you discuss the situation in Ukraine—especially when you find yourself facing such a wide range of opposing viewpoints that seem to clash so directly with everything you lived through and believe.

I suppose you understand that even with the best intentions, it isn't really possible to factor an "emotional" connection into how any topic should be moderated. Other people on Reddit need the freedom to express their views without feeling guilty, especially if they feel like sharing an opinion might cause someone else emotional distress. There are certainly instances in moderation where intervention is necessary—but that should only happen when it's clear someone is intentionally trying to inflict personal harm on another user. That doesn't seem to be the case here, and from the way you phrased your objection, I get the sense that you actually realize this too; it seems less like you're asking for special treatment regarding the subject and more like you've simply decided to move on from it.

If you really want to, I suppose there might be a way for you to contribute to the conversation while still protecting yourself as much as possible. At the suggestion of a few Reddit users from the Ukraine thread, I’ve actually set up a second topic. I pinned it as a megathread within the World section, where no actual discussion or commentary on events is permitted at all. On that specific thread, people are only meant to post links to specific military or political developments on the battlefields in Ukraine, accompanied by brief, factual descriptions of what those links contain if they happen to be in a foreign language. My hope is that this will allow me to move all those heavy-hitting links being posted by Konev and a few others out of the main discussion area—providing them an alternative space so the primary thread doesn't get overwhelmed by them. I also believe this gives you a chance to share specific data regarding the events you follow, which you feel might shape public opinion on what is happening in Ukraine, but without having to engage in arguments with people who disagree with you. Any attempt by anyone to reply to your posts on a thread where discussion is strictly forbidden will result in a warning for breaking the rules and the removal of the post. Likewise, I would ask that you please refrain from replying to anyone else's posts on that thread.

Regarding the parallels you're drawing to the old Yugoslavia days: I suppose I generally support my predecessor's decision on this matter, and I actually played a part in suggesting and deciding that we include it within the specific discussion rules for the thread on Ukraine. There have been a few instances where having that rule in place for this particular topic seemed quite useful, I guess.

I would like to emphasize that I haven't issued any bans or other serious sanctions simply because someone disregarded or ignored that specific rule. My approach is mostly limited to making requests and appeals for people to follow it; I only use the rule as a basis for deleting certain posts—not all of them—when they conflict with it. Whenever I have the time, I try to explain the reasoning behind why such behavior isn't ideal, in the hopes that I might eventually convince Reddit users of the validity of my convictions. I suppose what I am trying to say is that the mere fact this rule is listed in the special instructions on the first page of the thread shouldn't, in itself, be seen as a major obstacle to your participation in the discussion.

fadedmason3 I suppose you have a valid point that twisting another user's handle to be insulting could potentially be treated as harassment rather than just a simple violation of the rules. However, I feel like some of your other grievances might be a bit too granular, perhaps even excessive. It seems quite difficult to manage things with that level of scrutiny, especially from a moderator's perspective, when they are tasked with overseeing hundreds of posts all at once—like during one of those massive Reddit threads that blow up overnight. I imagine that the kind of hyper-detailed moderation you are advocating for just isn't feasible, and honestly, I don't think it's practiced on any major platform I'm aware of, particularly those free community sites where people volunteer their time.

Christian Torres3 - I am sorry that you feel the need to comment on how I moderate the thread regarding Ukraine using that particular tone. I suppose you personally don't have much reason to complain about my moderation decisions, not because you hold some privileged status here, but simply because you are among the small number of users who support the pro-Ukrainian (pro-Western) side while engaging in meaningful, reasoned discussion and attempting to follow the rules. And that is where "your side" seems to struggle: on one hand, you are in the minority, and on the other, a higher percentage of your group (not you specifically) chooses to violate the rules of discourse, so once moderation takes place, even fewer of you remain to participate in the conversation.

Brenda Cook4 - Not at all; I will absolutely never agree that from a moderator's perspective, it is desirable to tolerate or encourage the scattering of inflammatory claims, such as calling someone a fascist or a similar label. On domestic threads, this Reddit has struggled since its inception to break up arguments centered around old historical divides in almost every American political topic—and now you are advocating for allowing variations of that same toxic terminology in threads concerning foreign events. In that sense, I think your understanding of "freedom" is misplaced. Freedom isn't just enjoyed by those who would go around trumpeting that others are fascists; everyone has the right to freedom, including those who simply find that style of discussion repulsive, whether on local or international topics.

One might call someone a fascist, but personally, I would prefer if whoever uses that label in a post linked their subject to Benito Mussolini—otherwise, to me, it is something that has no place in civilized and polite debate. So, we have a conflict here between your conception of freedom, which leans toward chaos and anarchy, and my understanding of freedom, which is based on the premise that everyone's liberty ends where it begins to negate the liberty of another.

However, much like what I mentioned to granitefalcon26 regarding comparisons to the wars in the former Yugoslavia, it is worth noting that I am not forcing my deeply held convictions upon anyone through sanctions (the stick) to convince them of my correctness. I prefer rational and reasoned persuasion whenever I have the patience and time, rather than relying solely on sanctions (if that is indeed the only issue within a post).

and finally:

Nathan Brooks4 - Thank you for the recommendations on how to better moderate the Ukraine thread. I invite the other moderators of the politics section to read this so we can collectively see what we might implement from these suggestions. Yours was by far the most constructive post on the topic, and I am personally grateful to you for writing it from the perspective of a user and participant in the discussion.👍

PL. dobiti