Posts by Charles Fox10

In the context of this discussion, that specific post doesn't warrant any kind of moderator intervention.

It’s funny when a colleague writes an appeal claiming something is "common knowledge," yet you haven't a clue. You could at least make the effort to double-check. Once I did, I realized they were right, even if I still don't buy some of their logic.

By that same logic, you could look into who was actually responsible for the deaths of Paradžik and Kir to find out what's "common knowledge"—and track the legal proceedings all the way through those various pardons.

You ever notice how other posts hint at suspicious circumstances surrounding the deaths of Paradžik, Barešić, and Kraljević on this exact same topic? Take a look; they're right here. Then ask yourself why those insinuations don't bother you, while everyone else's do. It helps to apply the same standards to everything; you might be taken more seriously.

I'm done with this pointless debate.

Everything is fine.

Joseph Stewart38, stop calling me a leftist or trying to label me. I haven't used those kinds of labels on this forum since I joined, so don't start with me now.

zeusxl, do you have anything actually concrete or specific to say about our colleague KLCCLK? Or is there nothing else on your schedule today besides trolling the PŽK thread?

Technically, user hr1u00 was correctly flagged because their post lacked any actual argument. As for the Nazor situation, I checked the facts myself to ensure my own actions were correct, and since it wasn't accurate, I went ahead and lifted the flag.

We could spend all day debating Nazor or the demolition of that half-ruined theater in San Diego where an American word was never even uttered, or we could discuss tearing down the monument to someone who spent their entire life trying to "return Dalmatia to Italy." But clearly, nobody cares about that. It’s just easier to point at Nazor and claim he ordered something—or whatever—just to make a quick point.

Can we finally put this to rest? Both hr1u00 and I have settled this publicly and via DM, so let's move on.

As for the warning that doesn't exist and won't exist: you and the other user keep calling for it, using that previous example as justification. Even though those examples are completely apples and oranges, it's common knowledge how Kir and Paradžik were killed; the Nazor thing really should have been verified first.

The user starting with 'k' didn't accuse anyone or even insinuate guilt; they simply stated that those two and others didn't commit suicide. They were quoting a post by 'k' which, in my view, was trolling and mentioned Franjo Tuđman, so everything was wiped.

It's a bit strange, honestly. You're looking for an argument for something you *think* was written, rather than demanding an argument when someone actually claims that person XY ordered the murder of person NN.

If you read something different from what was actually written, that's your issue. I'm ending this thread here; I don't moderate based on personal preferences.

What exactly is tripping you up about my sentence?

Alright, I'm lifting the warning and the ban. But please, next time we have one of these debates, try putting in a bit more effort so we can avoid these kinds of misunderstandings.

I posted that at 3:53 PM according to the forum clock, and lifted the warning and ban at 3:54 PM. Since our friend is currently banned, feel free to ask him if that's accurate once he's back online.

To prevent any further confusion: the user ended up banned because his appeal lacked any actual arguments—he just pointed out what the post was referring to. I did my part by checking whether he actually had a point or not.

Do you have anything substantial to write regarding this info? Ideally with a link that could debunk the claims being made by everyone on the forums and in the media—those insisting the article never appeared in those papers. After all, repeating a lie a hundred times doesn't make it the istina, regardless of what Wikipedia says.

Unlocked, though you shouldn't overlook this point from a colleague's post:

Paul Peterson2 said:............

Do you agree with Stipa Petrin that members of Congress should receive the same pay during their term as they did before they were elected?

Post this to the main thread with some links and we'll see where it goes.

Paul Peterson2 said:Is there any way to start a poll within an existing thread?

Which PDF and which thread are we talking about?

What does the Supreme Court of the United States have to do with us?

People have brought this up several times now. No need to keep repeating it.

A little slip-up on my part, and there it is—unlocked.

feralranger said:First, one user gets censored or deleted under the vague label of trolling, then another follows almost automatically. It’s pretty clear both posts were perfectly fine and written quite politely.

And after all that, instead of actually fixing the mistake, we get these clumsy excuses from the censors and the simpletons.

Believe what you want. But if we start deleting posts only to have every subsequent reply quoting them flagged as moderation, we’re just playing a game of Sisyphus.

I have no interest in getting involved in this story, nor do I intend to. This post probably should have been deleted or buried, but I'm simply explaining how things work here.

It’s incredibly rare—honestly, I wouldn't have thought possible once—that we issue a ban for reposting deleted content. We usually assume someone just missed the notification that their post was pulled. But if they do it a second time? A ban is pretty much a given. It’s just one-on-one moderation at that point.

So, what I don't like isn't your reasoning for why the posts are missing—that’s one thing entirely. It’s your claim that this is censorship. That argument just doesn't hold water, regardless of how you look at it. It isn't in the policy. Politics.

That’s all from me.

feralranger said:Exactly. That was the context. I just quoted the specific part where he asked the question and gave my reply. But since they’ve been playing games with deletions and censorship, now you have to wonder if everything is actually visible... If I’d known they were going to mess with the posts like this, I would have taken a screenshot. Sadly, I didn't, but it's pretty obvious from this situation anyway.

Why make it complicated? Standard moderation involves pulling posts that are inappropriate, off-topic, or borderline against the rules.

When a post like that gets removed, it's also standard practice to clear out any other posts quoting that deleted content. There's the logic behind it.

There's no need to read too much into these moderation moves. We often do it automatically without even looking at what was actually in the deleted post.

Interesting☕

Setting aside the fact that publicly calling out the Prime Minister is asking for trouble, I should mention there weren't two leaders, but three. The second one wasn't fully quoted because a crucial part was left out—specifically, my take on the post.

I won't be dragging this debate out since the Politics supermod already closed the case. Just a quick heads-up: when you report posts using the triangle icon, they become visible to all the site moderators.

🤔 I have to admit, it’s a bit confusing. You’ve got a card on the PDF, yet you're "searching" for one in Politics. Military history and technology.

Hlebyn seems to harbor some resentment toward us. It views the average conservative as an adversary that simply needs to be defeated.

Though, I suppose this is really just about chocolate and Hershey.

Not even an option.

Threads are locked.

Interesting approach, building an archive like that.

I saw the post and archived it, but I also caught yours—the one where you were looking for a card and mentioned you’d saved it just in case. It looks like you edited it right before I wiped it, which is why I didn't archive the moderator commentary. We had an agreement that if I missed any rule-breakers on a thread, someone would shoot me a DM. So, that particular post was entirely redundant. Rest assured, I saw the report too. I saw everything.

You know as well as I do that people wander off-topic sometimes; it’s nothing new. Someone getting lost isn't an attack on anyone. As for your take on whether his other post constitutes hate speech—that’s your interpretation. It wasn't directed at anyone specific. In my view, it doesn't qualify, but I'll leave the final call to the higher-ups.

And you know what’s funny? You don't bother reporting the rule-breakers whose style doesn't bother you, yet you're quick to flag the ones who do. I suppose I was being naive, thinking we were all using the same yardstick.