Posts by Charles Fox10

James Patel20 said:Fine, go ahead and abolish the cost then.

Since we can't quantify the "cost" of various political shifts, there’s really no point in discussing the price tag of a referendum.

Focusing on the expense of a referendum is an insult to democracy and common sense.

It would be poor etiquette to conflate topics if doing so denies someone credit for their input.

I'm curious, though—how does calculating the cost of a referendum offend intelligence or logic? We've seen countless news outlets, both print and digital, report on the costs of such votes without anyone claiming it's an affront to democracy.
My view of democracy includes acknowledging its price tag, but I suppose that's just my take.

James Patel20 said:Why does this number even matter if we're talking about the direct will of the people?

For instance, why don't we see numbers in the headlines for general elections?

Look, I already told you the headline is just a blend of two different topics. As for why other threads, like those regarding general elections, lack numerical indicators... don't ask me. Ask the person who actually creates the threads.

James Patel20 said:It seems a moderator decided to tack a price tag onto the "In the name of the family" referendum thread title. So, I have to ask:

Should we just put a cost on every political headline from now on?

What’s the price of democracy for Americans?

What does a government like this cost us?

What about tax compliance?

Or public health education?

Or perhaps, what is the value of Josip Perković?

The latter appears to be priceless.

Some moderators seem to think their job is to moderate the intelligence of the users.

If they were even slightly more intelligent, this might be tolerable.

As it stands, it just feels primitive.

Since when is a title an issue?

There were two separate threads about the referendum yesterday. Following standard logic, they merged them, and the title is simply a combination of the two.

This isn't even the first time a thread title includes a dollar amount. Given that our current discussion covers everything from the mechanics of the referendum to the specific legal regulations involved, we might as well include the total impact on the US budget.

Here are the links. Read them carefully; they’re nothing but insults.
Regarding the links (like the one on Mrsić), the context within the post made it perfectly clear what was being implied.

- controversial footage

VIDEO: Did Lovrić Merzel embrace the invading soldiers back in '91?

- MLM assets

According to her financial disclosures, Lovrić Merzel now owns an apartment in downtown Washington, D.C., right near the Marriott, valued at roughly $185,000, purchased via a mortgage. She also owns a house with a yard in Strmen, near Sunja, worth about $33, bought with her salary, which she co-owns with her husband. Other properties include a 2,900-square-foot apartment in Sisk, valued at $220,000, purchased through a combination of savings and a loan.

- godfather Mrsić

Democratic Party member Mirando Mrsić held a christening for his adopted sons.

Josipović arrived late to the ceremony for the adopted sons of Democratic Party representative Mirando Mrsić, forcing the event to be moved to the Gospa trsatski church in Rijeka...

esdepeovac Mrsić held the christening at Trsat with Josipović in attendance.

The godmother to young Leon was Lovrić Merzel, while Luka's godmother was a family friend.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an example of a post that doesn't violate the Politics rules PDF. It isn't even hard to pull off, yet the useless moderators leave it to administration to deal with.

Given the warning posted on the thread, the District Attorney basically just clarified that the next post violating the rules will receive a "more substantial" reward.

You're misreading me. I’m talking about posts containing links.

wearybison8 said:topic iskasapljen 🙄
The deleted posts—the ones that actually contained substance beyond just links meant to irritate the mods—have been scrubbed, leaving behind nothing but the replies to them.
Essentially, the entire thread was nuked, all because someone wanted to know if a certain lady appeared in any footage from the early nineties.

In short, I can't help but wonder if there’s a more sensible moderator out there than Charles Fox10 over in the politics section; someone who, upon seeing a rule violation, might actually take a moment to salvage the key points and clean up the thread rather than just burning the whole house down.

Two posts with images were deleted by mistake, but the rest aren't coming back. I could try to restore them, but then we'd just be dealing with nonsense—and if I recall correctly, you already have enough accumulated to justify a three-day timeout.

Terms like bitch, slut, or any other profanity definitely don't belong on the US Politics board.

Just follow the Board Rules and everything should be fine.

Every instance of advocacy for removal deserves its appropriate "reward." If it’s minimal, perhaps I'll just bump it up by granting all promoters a three-day weekend.

Maybe it is a bit much... we'll give it some thought and see.

vividmaker9 said:So, here’s the proof of how this whole mess actually plays out. Then the moderator swoops in and starts handing out warnings like candy. Why am I the one getting flagged? Just because I asked another user to actually produce their old posts from 2009—you know, the ones where they supposedly complained about those traitorous bylaws—and after being ignored several times, I finally just accepted that the posts don't exist. I mean, what other conclusion am I supposed to draw when things go down like that? These are the exact moments where moderators actually need to step up and moderate. Instead of playing cop, why can't a mod just jump into the thread and say: "Look guys, you're fighting over a technicality we can settle right now. Since we can't quote posts that aren't there, the only way to solve this dilemma is to see the evidence. So, mcaucliffe (or whoever), go ahead and quote those 2009 posts where you were protesting the statute change. If you can't do it, then it's perfectly fair to conclude those posts don't exist and you never wrote them. Anything else after that is just trolling." Simple as that. End of story.

Because:

Otherwise, everyone involved in this kind of exchange will face sanctions, regardless of who started it.

vividmaker9 said:Is it really that much of a struggle to just answer a few basic questions? I mean, if you ask someone on a forum multiple times to point out their own past posts—assuming they actually have any—and they just dodge the question every single time without showing a single thing... Am I some kind of liar for concluding those posts don't exist? Or is this person, who refuses to prove they ever wrote anything while calling my conclusion a lie, just a textbook troll? And one more thing. How else are you supposed to prove something doesn't exist on a message board, other than the fact that the person claiming it exists won't show any proof despite being asked repeatedly? I’m looking for actual answers here, so just come clean: who's actually trolling the politics thread?

Hardly.

Charles Fox10 said:http://www.forum.com/showthread.php?t=66911

It doesn't work that way. If I ask you to keep things civil a few times and you still won't, the next person gets a short break for breaking the rules.

If things are settled for Viviane Reding, then I suppose they're settled. She likely knows best.

Benjamin Reyes52 said:So, I’m curious: what can we actually discuss regarding Canada without getting our posts deleted or turned into a joke?

Are we allowed to talk about the miserable weather in Pittsburgh? Or maybe tourism in the Mediterranean Region? Can we even mention those corrupt politicians who bleed every proud group of people in this nation dry? Come on, Charles Fox10, give me some guidance here. What exactly are we permitted to write about if we want to avoid a massive confrontation over a topic as sensitive as Canada?

The present and the future. Social dynamics, political relations, or pretty much anything else
as long as you stick to the PDF rule for Politics. Just don't claim Canadians are made up, deny certain languages exist, or go on about specific war criminals. We've had enough of that in the last few posts already.

It isn't that difficult. Just check what’s already been said before posting. No one ever banned debating with actual arguments, but a little decency goes a long way.

Besides, I've asked you all to follow the rules more than once, yet here we are. What exactly do you expect from the moderators now?

Why is following this basic rule such a struggle?

Civilized debate, respectful behavior, equality among participants, tolerance, fairness, unity, efficiency, respecting individuals, and listening to all sides—these are the core values of the Politics subforum.

The discussion is closed for now. If we haven't reached a conclusion by New Year's Day, we’ll either start a new thread or revive this one. In the meantime, there are plenty of other topics on the PDF to keep you busy. Just some strategies for attacking or defending The Administration's moves.

Amanda Hughes37 said:Yeah... that's a still from that series "Famous women in America"😬

If anyone had sense, Chuck should have recognized her immediately🙂

pipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

I’m not trying to be philosophical here; I’m just laying out how things should run. You report a post, the moderators react, and only then can we debate why an action was taken. Otherwise, there's no way to tell if a deleted post actually warranted a ban.

And you aren't Rambo—we all know that, and if I recall correctly, we've already addressed this once before.

If you're going to post, go ahead. We'll moderate to the best of our ability, and it certainly helps if someone flags something along the way.

Secretary of the Treasury: Charles Fox10 (everyone loves him, which is arguably the most thankless job there is)

I'm a crowd favorite, apparently 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Please report posts like this using the flag icon. If you don't see any moderator action within the usual 24-hour window, feel free to open a thread with the FBI.

casualharbor3 said:I’ve already proven they're lying. Just Google the definition of "trolling" and see what comes up.
1. Godiva claims the US doesn't recognize medical degrees here.
2. They claim every single patient is dissatisfied with their doctors.
If that isn't trolling (and I've already established that it is), then I don't know what is.
Another user is claiming wounds are being stitched with staples, leaving wide scars, and that some gynecologist actually signed off on a woman's botched C-section.
No link provided. That's just classic Charles Fox10 trolling.

I've stated my piece; now it's up to the admins.