Posts by Charles Fox10

That’s been handled in the other thread, though I should mention we aren't online 24/7. Feel free to lock.

We’ve tried this more than once, and every single time it just devolves into a chaotic mess where nobody can make heads or tails of the conversation.
Coats of arms don't belong here; they aren't even part of the topic for this PDF. The core issue is politics—too many people assume anything political is fair game for debate, but it isn't. I’d honestly love to read or perhaps even contribute something regarding heraldry and flags through the ages, but that belongs in a proper venue for history, not under politics.

Nothing much happened. I just briefly removed him while I was moderating the thread, then put him back.

What’s the issue here?

The PDF rules regarding Politics state this under Article 6:

Links aren't a substitute for actual content. When posting a link, you should include a brief description of what it covers (a title, a summary, or a key quote). It needs to be obvious why the page is relevant to the discussion.

My only concern would be that such posts might become unreadable. To help with clarity, we suggest putting the quote or headline inside a quote block. If we allowed posts consisting solely of links, threads would quickly turn into nothing but a chain of URLs, making them impossible to follow.

Posting the same thing in multiple threads is usually considered spam, though context matters—sometimes it actually makes sense. In my view, what you're doing isn't spam since it deals with the two major political parties within a single article; duplicating it like that isn't much of an issue. I might have structured it differently myself, but that's just my take.

neonfox12 said:It seems like she’s been dropping posts just like this one quite frequently lately, and I noticed they’ve all been scrubbed from the board pretty systematically.

I’d really appreciate it if someone could do an internal check to see if these users are being officially banned. From where I’m sitting, this content is a direct violation of the rules laid out in the very first post of this thread. If there aren't any bans being handed out, then I have to speak up—it feels a bit lopsided when I get slapped with a red card just for venting about something trivial.

Thanks for looking into this. Best regards.

It means the mods are cleaning up the thread, and you can't really ask about someone else's ban when it doesn't affect you.

Morgan Cook10 said:No worries.
on this page (in case the link to the post breaks again)
http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=657136&page=131

this post
http://www.forum.com/showpost.php?p=5...postcount=2606

and this one
http://www.forum.com/showpost.php?p=5...postcount=2621
on the next page.

There are a few others that more indirectly label voters as Republican Party thieves.

The issue is that the moderators didn't react to those posts... in American politics, there is an unwritten rule that parties and politicians can insult each other... and that's fine... but here, people are insulting those who vote for the same side.
..so I wonder if someone would be sanctioned for calling voters of another party a slur, or really any other group?

Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on context. But since you seem bothered by insults directed at the Republican Party, I have to wonder why you weren't bothered by the insults toward the Democratic Party—which were quite "entertaining," involving labels like "party of brainless voters," "descendants of butchers," or "Red Communists." You have to admit, calling someone a thief is mild compared to being called a butcher.☕
Consistency is the fundamental rule of moderation, and also of reporting posts that don't belong here.

Some things get moderated, while others don't.
☕

Conspiracy theories and all that nonsense belong in that PDF, not here in Politics. I see endless threads on active topics where people dive into this stuff, starting debates about how everyone is essentially the same, just with better branding. We really don't need another dedicated space for people to argue over why their side is slightly less corrupt than the other. I’m still waiting for the inevitable post debating how many former Communist Party USA members jumped ship to one party or the other, eventually claiming that Person A in the Republican Party is somehow morally superior to Person B in the Democratic Party. That part is already a given.

I’m telling you again, if you're being dishonest, you get a warning. That's just how this works on PDF. We’ve been doing politics for years. Pointing out physical flaws isn't polite, and doing it to someone who isn't even alive anymore? That goes beyond just being impolite.

Politicians are public figures by choice; they won't lose their status just because they face some criticism. However, we are talking about the deceased now—both individuals mentioned in your post. I just noticed you referred to the second one as Gnome. The point isn't that we only say nice things about the dead, but if a post is written solely to insult and label people, it gets a warning. That’s how I interpreted your post, especially with the comments about physical appearance. To quote you directly:

an intentional strike meant to hurt someone.

What am I supposed to do? Comment on Biden's face, or the BMI of a high-ranking female official, or the date on someone's birth certificate??

We aren't anyone's parents, and it's not our job to force politeness, but once those lines are crossed, the post gets a warning. As far as I'm concerned, you're keeping the warning, and if someone higher up decides to give me one too, well, I have no problem with that.

I've handed out enough warnings for the crooked lines already, and I'll keep doing it. Mocking physical flaws isn't decent, and frankly, I couldn't care less about these aesthetic debates.

Benjamin Reyes52 said:Ha, it looks like even the political commentary on PL is gone...

Maybe it's better if I just stay quiet...

It’s out of our hands entirely. I can't give you a better answer than that, because frankly, we have no idea what's going on with our colleague, other than the fact that he's alive and well.

No need for further explanation; I hear you loud and clear, and I hope you realize that we on the Democratic Party moderation team feel the same way.
It isn't personal. It’s just that politics is for the losers, whereas the Democratic Party is meant for much simpler conversations.

I deleted it because the thread veered into territory we have zero tolerance for, and you know how it is. Your initial idea might have been fine, but from the title onwards, those posts were headed straight for a ban.

Your post wasn't removed because of any personal vendetta. It was deleted because quoting a post that already has a strike against it is against the rules. Plus, when you drop links in a foreign language, you really need to do a bit more than just post the URL.

If you're posting content in a foreign language, an English summary is mandatory! You don't have to translate the whole thing; just a quick one or two sentences explaining the main point in English will do.

http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=66911

With a headline like USA military intervention – NATO Expeditionary Force in North Africa and the Levant and a poll asking Do you support a USA military intervention in North Africa and the Levant? it’s a non-starter. My colleague already covered why, given the current state of USA military capabilities.

If you want to discuss the actual formation of functional USA military forces, try this thread: because we aren't going to be building international war machines here in the Politics sub.

Even Einstein wasn't immune to using hate speech at times. 🤔

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. Though, I'm less certain about the universe.

We know he’s been tied up with some personal and business matters lately, but beyond that, there's not much to say. Naturally, we're expecting him.

Chloe Harris2 said:The TV stream isn't working for me again 😢 though I'm enjoying reading through this thread. It’s certainly better than those live text updates on ESPN or CNN.

Try checking here: http://www.sport365.live/en/main

Baker, you're the man 🙏🤣🤣

Congrats, guys👍

I’m being serious when I say I have no interest in hearing suggestions about leaving America, nor does anyone's residency status particularly concern me. It’s just unpleasant to see these things brought up. Generally speaking, it all feels unnecessary and quite pointless.

I’m not a fan of this, and clearly you aren't either—bringing up someone's residence or suggesting they move. It slips through the cracks occasionally, I suppose.☕

James Patel20 said:If she thinks Fascist Europe is the problem, I’d suggest North Korea—truly a beautiful anti-fascist nation.

Well, if we aren't being quite so extreme, there's always Russia, China, or the USA...

All such lovely anti-fascist states.

Honestly, with so many wonderful anti-fascist countries out there, who would be crazy enough to live in "Fascist Europe"?

Especially in a backwater like America.

(Which, by the way, is about to get swallowed up by fascist Spain. In handball, obviously.)