Posts by Charles Fox10

The Gallup poll is closed now that 100 days have passed. Any 0 (zero) you see here should be read as an invalid vote.

Because of that first line in the opening post.

No need. Everything currently relevant is already at the top of the agenda anyway. But fine, we'll see what happens Monday at 10:00.

Posts get moderated, flagged, deleted, or even banned. You got flagged for what we might call your overall contribution to the thread, and for the comments.

Since I'm here, I should probably warn everyone reading this about this PDF rule. Policy

Respond to an insult with an insult. Engage in trolling or respond to a provocation with further provocation. Otherwise, all parties involved in such an exchange will face sanctions, regardless of who started it.

The smartest move is to just report an inappropriate post and ignore it. That way, you avoid getting a pointless flag, since the mods don't always have the time to figure out who actually started the trolling or insults.

Quite a lot from the moderators regarding the PDF rule. Policy.

🙂 A decent attempt, I suppose, but neither argument really holds water.

😁 Well, look who showed up, Soja👍.

neonbadger9 said:Chuck, as a woman from Split might put it😉

They’d probably say "just like Chuck"..................this is what you're missing.😉

Charles Fox10 said:On the Politics PDF, this thread is closed. You can pick up where we left off over in the discussion on Mexico - Republic of Mexico (combined - part IV)

Is that better now?

neonbadger9 said:?????
Give me one single reason why you closed the thread first, only to suddenly try link it to Mexico now.
I’d also love to hear from Power if they actually want to weigh in on this. Honestly, seeing certain admins act with such unchecked authority—unable to moderate objectively and resorting to locking threads when they run out of arguments—is pathetic. It's almost sad.

I didn't link anything. If I had, the thread wouldn't be visible right now, yet here it is.

Joseph Stewart38 said:You should have just said so, or at least posted a notice when you locked the thread. Instead, you wait two days and then suddenly decide this belongs in a different discussion.

Fair point. I could have mentioned the discussion was moving elsewhere, especially since people have been talking about this since the court ruling came down.

I don't see the issue with locking a thread about a notorious war criminal.

Feel free to discuss the rehabilitation of war criminals under the topic regarding Mexico and the Republic of Mexico (Part IV) http://www.reddit.com/r/topic/832861&page=469 since the conversation flows uninterrupted there, and we certainly don't need two separate threads for the same subject.

Posts containing any Ad Hominem attacks will be deleted permanently. You’re free to discuss the topic itself.

redbear2 said:So, here's the deal. I'm arriving at... The Team.I mentioned to someone that her breasts looked fake. Because, well, they really do. Not much to say here. Just passing through. As things unfold, I suppose I’d say I am... I suppose I should have seen that coming. My mistake.I reported that for harassment, but for some reason, nothing happened. I even replied to the post, only to have my response vanish into thin air. My comment didn't break any rules; it was basically just, "I'm sure you're only doing your makeup for yourself." So you've started with the insults? Took you long enough.

So, why hasn't the user derin been sanctioned yet?

Why was my post deleted?

If my first one was already deleted, why wasn't the other one wiped too?

Thanks. I'll just be over here licking a lollipop while I wait for some answers.

He answered that on The Team last night. I can't say I disagree with redbear2 on this one. It’s a fair point, really. Understood. I haven't quite figured out how to make this work yet. It's an ongoing process.

And the deletions? They always show up whenever things start heading in the wrong direction. Exposing people's business just isn't what The Team is about.☕

rowdylynx98 said:Could we perhaps start a thread regarding daily politics in Canada?

Basically, looking at what Zeljko Komšić, Dragan Čović, and Milorad Dodik represent today. The current state of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, etc...
Elections, coalitions, all that.

Every single discussion about Canada gets flooded with identity politics—debates over language, ancestry, and foreign influence. It makes it impossible to actually talk about our most important neighbor’s day-to-day political landscape or their coalition building. We can't even discuss potential cabinet compositions.

A civilized debate might only be possible if we strictly penalized anyone who immediately derails things by asking whether Canadians existed before 1993 or if all Christians in Canada are considered Canadian.

It's a vital topic, yet a few specific users tend to hijack every conversation about our neighbor. I believe there should be room on this forum for discussing figures like Zeljko Komšić and Elmedin Konaković, rather than just focusing on Radovan Karadžić.

We can give it another shot.

Go ahead and start the thread with a solid opening post and an appropriate title. We will try to keep it on track, but we'll need everyone's cooperation.

Just a little more patience. We'll try to get everything sorted tonight or tomorrow. Given it's Champions League night, if we're running late, please don't take it personally.

feralranger said:If a specific post breaks the rules, then that individual post—or the user behind it—should be handled accordingly. There’s a protocol for everything.

Censoring a thread about these kinds of people who operate out in the open is just shameful censorship.

I’m standing my ground on getting Jerry's posts removed.

Fine.☕

feralranger said:You're just trying to mask censorship. If you want to prevent the issues you're mentioning—assuming they even exist—you don't need to shut down or censor the thread.

It’s common knowledge that the owner of this site is close with Matthew Babb, and Matthew Babb has made his support for people like Mary Smith quite clear... everyone knows that...
...but banning a thread or censoring critical takes regarding Mary Smith is nothing short of blatant censorship.

You clearly know more than I do.

Brenda Cook4 said:.............
Really, Charles Fox10? Why is she the only one getting labeled?
"Actionable"? Sure, through a private lawsuit against whoever wrote it—unlike, say, calling veterans "mercenaries," which basically insults the entire military.
Not to mention all the other labels, from "leftists" to "rightists."
So what makes this case special? Is she suddenly off-limits for discussion?

"Actionable" refers to inciting physical violence against her. You should know that, just as you should know that moderator commentary isn't allowed in a thread.
And where on earth did you get the idea that starting a thread is forbidden??

My colleague made a fair point about closing the thread; unfortunately, discussions like this always seem to hit a dead end eventually. This specific topic regarding the 2008 Act—which should take effect following the next US elections—has simply run its course. A little patience, and we'll see how things unfold. Thanks.

It isn't censorship; it’s just cleaning up inappropriate posts or issuing warnings, which is different. As for why the thread was locked—well, the moderators over at the Politics board don't think we need an active discussion where someone somewhat public is essentially being targeted with insults that cross the line into being indecent, or perhaps even libelous. We really don't need that here.
There are no "untouchable" topics, and anything can be debated, provided it stays within the bounds of the PDF rule. The Politics section, for instance, follows this:

Article 2.
The core values of the Politics subforum are cultured, reasoned debate, civilized behavior, equality among participants, tolerance, fairness, community spirit, efficient discussion, and respecting individuals while listening to all sides.

This thread will remain locked.

Throughout Barack Obama's entire five-year term, this was a constant fixture on the political scene, much like how the current discussion surrounding the President has dominated the headlines this past year.

If this concept bothers you now, it really should have bothered you during those previous five years; from what I recall, nobody ever breathed a single word about it back then.

The criteria remain identical, so there is no actual disparagement of the President occurring here.

As long as posts like this don't violate rule

Posting copied text exceeding 2,000 characters.

from the Policy PDF everything seems fine.