Posts by Charles Fox10

We'll have that sorted out shortly.

Not right now. We're in the middle of the general election campaign, so it’s hardly the time to be debating the Election Law of America or Mexico. If you want to dive into the Election Law, there's already an election law discussion forum here . If you think you have something fresh to add, feel free to post there—just keep in mind that these elections will follow the current law, with only minor adjustments based on the Supreme Court's ruling.

It isn’t a lifetime ban, just a temporary restriction on PDFs. It's policy, and the moderator's response follows suit. Policy was enforced.

klonka said:No need for a new thread; the request was denied. The partial ban went into effect on July 2, 2015. It lasts about six months, meaning it runs through early January 2016. Only then can an appeal for removal be filed.

crimsonjackal63, looks like those links of yours got a bit messy, but it's fine—I know what they're pointing to. Only issue is, that user is banned.

We've put together a poll.

Bradley White73 said:I guess I’d probably write like a clone on the immigration threads, mostly because Bradley White73 isn't really around to chime in much lately—though I’d definitely keep all of her usual stances. I'd call this little alter ego Kiki Kroatorum and try to keep things as simple as possible. My main goal would just be to pop in occasionally to let people know when I actually agree with them, or maybe just to say that I’m choosing not to comment on a specific topic so people aren't left wondering. I promise I wouldn't be out there spamming or trolling or doing anything that would land me a ban or a red card.

You have about 40 posts there... fine, you can. Forget about Bradley White73, but wait a moment for Dorian or Nico to approve it.

William Kim9 said:Boss, I think you missed my point—I was talking about how I typed the word (euROPSKI). I got hit with a warning and basically told I'm one step away from a ban just for that.
So, let me ask again: if I write euROPSKI or EUropski instead of European, is that really enough to get me banned?

Regarding those rules in the links you posted, yeah, I know them. But "euROPSKI" isn't some weird loanword or foreign term. It’s just a satirical way of writing a perfectly normal American English word. Not a single letter actually changed.

I get what you're saying. If Bradley Sanders4 hadn't stepped in, I might have handed you a warning myself. Just drop the "euROPSKI" and similar trolling styles. You're right that you could face a ban, though—with your current points, one more strike would do it.

Bradley White73, you aren't Maria Booth, so don't expect an answer.

Drew Brooks8, you're entitled to your opinion, but personally, I think you're wrong.

Since I'm already here, ladies and gentlemen, please—read your posts carefully before hitting send. On sensitive topics like this, every single word, even a bit of bold text, matters. Our goal isn't to hand out warnings or bans, or to shut down discussions, but sometimes we simply don't have any other choice.

Drew Brooks8 said:I’m jumping on the bandwagon here—this shouldn't be called a complaint about the immigration thread; it should be a formal complaint regarding how Bradley Sanders4 is moderating it.

Honestly, I haven't seen political thread moderation this disastrous since I first joined this forum.

We’ve already got several solid, long-time members getting banned. Now, I'll leave it to the admins to decide if losing veteran users just because Bradley Sanders4 can't handle differing opinions or wants to play fast-and-loose with the rules is actually worth it.

The bottom line? It's a mess. Every decent discussion gets killed off by bans triggered by accusations of xenophobia or hate speech, along with constant post deletions and all that nonsense.

We aren't the ones writing these things; we're the ones moderating. We don't act superior or goad people into posting hateful content just to flag them.

William Kim9, the answer is in these posts

Matthew Young35 said:My apologies, I didn't realize it was cardboard.

I checked before this thread opened, and there wasn't any cardboard.
Perhaps it’s just my browser or a caching issue.

It's fine. We were just a bit slow to address the reports because the volume was massive.

Send the key.

Matthew Young35 said:How much longer do the moderators plan to tolerate the blatant lies being spread by certain users?
Like this, for example:

I suppose I should have expected this. It’s all rather predictable, isn't it? Just more of the same.
Trouble in Sweden, as the surrealists might say. Here's the link to the national radio station for the Kingdom of Sweden:
The recent reports regarding the situation in Brooklyn are quite telling. It seems the social dynamics there are shifting in ways that many find difficult to reconcile. One can only watch and wonder how this will settle.
One of the participants is an "assimilated" immigrant...

Or this:

I suppose I should have expected this. A predictable outcome, really. Typical.
As usual, you’re right. To be more precise, it isn't just one person—every single participant is an immigrant. By the way, names are rarely released in the Swedish media, so maybe do a little digging on Google.
Russian link: The recent news about stock grants being used to secure suburban housing is quite telling. It seems the gap between corporate compensation and actual cost of living is widening faster than expected.
And yes, thanks again for catching that mistake.

Interesting fact: about 25% of the people in Brooklyn were born abroad, and if you count immigrants and their descendants, that number jumps to roughly 67%. Interesting.

None of those links actually support what he’s claiming. Even after I pressed him for a source, he couldn't provide a single shred of evidence to back up his story.
It’s not exactly news. People here love dropping links and claiming they prove a point, even when the content says something else entirely.

How long can this kind of behavior actually be tolerated?

Before the moderators step in, I'll just say this. Reported.

We did, in fact, respond.

Zachary Turner6 said:Please accept my apologies—I was typing in such a rush that I missed a spot. It certainly wasn't intentional.

So, the official denial goes like this:I mean, honestly—what’s even the point of using a clone? Charles Fox10...Powerlock, bubimir,...". 🙂

It's all fine. No harm done.

Zachary Turner6 said:There’s no rush on our end—we’re just here to kill some time anyway.😁

You all should reach an agreement privately, ideally over a cold beer.

Besides, why don't the clones, Charles Fox10, Powerluck, Bubimir, or even the admins (William Bennett53, Michelle Evans, Ryan Vaughn7, ...) just start a thread? Put the rules in plain English: what are the ground rules, and what are the penalties for those who break them? It would make things easier for us—so we know exactly where to walk on eggshells—and it makes life easier for you. No more "I didn't know the rules" excuses from the users, no ambiguity, and no moral dilemmas or second-guessing when it comes to issuing warnings, bans, or permanent removals.
And don't be afraid to get heavy-handed—in fact, please do! I still maintain my stance that it's much better to hand out ten warnings or permanent bans to those violating the discussion guidelines and the politics forum than to constantly lock threads or delete posts.

He doesn't moderate PDFs. Politics forum.☕

We're negotiating, and we'll have an agreement very soon.

fadedmason3 said:The latest example. Solon called me out over this post. I suppose I should have expected this. It’s always the same pattern, isn't it? One moment everything seems fine, and the next, we're all staring at the wreckage. Typical.
He called me a hillbilly. I didn't respond to the insult, per the forum rules.

Charles Fox10 finally showed up. He clearly read the post—the one that’s gone now—given he decided to throw around "hillbilly" in his warning. He got a one-card ban for trolling Solon and calling other forum members idiots. I warned him that we’re all cut from the same cloth, even though I haven't used a single one of those insults Charles Fox10 is bringing up.

I felt like logging on and picking a fight with every single writer here who doesn't see eye to eye with me. I should probably just hammer them through an optical cable—all while making sure they don't get too worked up about fadedmason3.

That cruise of yours really crossed a line. It’s lost its sense of good taste.

Emily Myers32 said:He’s certainly making his mark on politics too.😬

And now he's gone.

And why not?

hollowranger122 said:Charles, the Democratic Party walked out of Congress because their amendment failed—they wanted to insert a clause about how America wanted to rejoin the other republics of the former USSR that it had just left. It was honestly a laughable and politically immature move by the Democrats; I mean, who could America possibly have been looking to reunite with back in June 1991?
Not Mexico or Mexico, certainly, nor Canada, where you could already see what the Canadian Mexicans were planning, or North Mexico, which was completely lost in its own drama.
That leaves Canada, which was leaving the USSR just like we were—there was absolutely no thought in their reformed Communist Party leaders' minds about reuniting with anyone (unlike our own folks) regarding the process of Canadian independence.
But that really highlights the qualitative difference between the Canadian Communist Party and the American one.

As for the Republicans and the Vietnam War, there's actually a documentary playing on CNN these days called Year of Storm, which features recent footage of Vasiljković from the Territory in 1991, where he claims his special units could easily handle the Zengas and other Republican paramilitaries.
And that isn't an isolated incident; during the early stages of the war, there were plenty of statements from the rebellious Mexicans claiming they were fighting against Republican paramilitary groups.

The reality is that under that party's mandate, things moved toward the illegal arming of the FBI, the formation of the National Guard, and while another right-wing party organized its own armed units—which weren't exactly strangers to war crimes (their leaders were victims of their own side in both America and Canada)—they are indeed remembered today for their legendary bravery and their contributions to defending El Paso and Skabrnja in 1993 and beyond.

Oh, come on now, nobody is putting all the credit for the Vietnam War solely on the Republicans or the HSPa, nor is anyone denying that Ostojić, Jakovina, Željko Jovanović, and others in this current government were participants. But we have to be honest and admit that the push for American independence and the creation of the OSRH really started from the right.

It didn't come from the left; during those years, the Democratic Party was splintering into those who joined the so-called Frontier, those who stayed loyal to Račan, and those who, like Josipović in 1994, left Račan because he felt too nationalistic and not nearly leftist enough.

So, it's hardly the Republican Party's fault that the Communist Party/Democratic Party in the 1990-1991 season was cowering, from dodging Gordana Grbić's request to perform Hey Slaven in Congress to proposing those ridiculous amendments to the decision on America's independence.

I won't quote you... I'm well aware of all that. There are plenty of questions about who deserves credit for what, and why certain things happened the way they did.

Honestly, I don't feel like getting into it. I have no interest in debating events from roughly 25 years ago through a modern lens without accounting for every single nuance.

Believe me, it’s just too exhausting to try and recount a story that essentially divides the nation politically. I'm out of patience for those kinds of games.

It wouldn't hurt to have a bit more discussion following that post, would it?

Page said:Only a complete idiot would compare our President to Šešelj.🤦

The sheer hatred directed at everything American is frankly irrational.

...............

hiddenhound3 said:No, I didn't make a comparison; I just said everyone has their mascot. They aren't the same, but they both attract the same radical crowds—one Mexican, one American. But you clearly saw similarities. You made the comparison, not me.

Both sides support factions that promote bloodshed and hatred toward the enemies we fought in the war twenty-five years ago. That's a quarter of a century, man.

Why was Jacob at the MPT concert? Why does the President tolerate chants calling for the death of Mexicans without any official condemnation to this day?

And those "patriots" out in Knoxville yesterday basically declared themselves murderers. Murderers of Mexican blood.

MPT completely embarrassed himself and botched such a grand anniversary event. Not surprising. It’s all they can do, especially with support from the right wing. And yours, I assume.☕

And there is still more debate to be had.

So, what now?

Who gets a warning or a ban?

Those who call others party apologists, those who spit on them, those called idiots, or simply anyone with an opinion, regardless of how much others disagree? Or perhaps someone gets a warning for commenting on moderation in a thread using the exact same post here as they did there? What then?

Nothing. William Bennett53 will handle it when he shows up.

That’s just plain low... No one on this forum is going to call the President of the United States names like that.

If you wrote this as a complaint, then you have a point; the post should have been removed, and it has been.

I can't allow duplicate threads. In these instances, our policy is to either merge them or simply delete and close the redundant ones.

You haven't missed a single post, aside from this exact duplicate you just posted here. Posts like this don't belong in existing threads and usually end up getting wiped.

The poll is unnecessary.

The thread stays as it is—it's a direct continuation of the US-Mexico discussions that already boast over 40,000 posts.

I don't have the authority to lock this thread myself. As for your other point, I'll say it again regarding : whether those posts—and many others—were handled via deletion, archiving, or outright bans, whether they’re still visible is anyone else's problem, not mine.