Posts by Charles Fox10

President Biden isn't visiting the USA - second attempt

Here. A new thread for you.

James Patel20 said:Let’s stick to the rules for once:

Go ahead and lock the thread, since the rules are pretty clear. 🙂

I wasn't quoting the rules; I was just saying this isn't okay. Nice try, though. The answer is no—we aren't starting some new thread about Perković based on a PDF from a political site. What we have here covers it.

So you decided to resurrect a thread from nearly nine years ago by quoting the first post of a banned user. I’m fairly certain you realize how frowned upon that is.

The thread stays locked unless the admins decide otherwise.

James Patel20 said:That’s all fair, but you have to wonder who benefits from linking Merkel's absence to how the government handles the Perković situation.

Even German state TV is connecting those dots, yet somehow it feels like we aren't or shouldn't be allowed to.

And who's stopping you? There are at least three different threads where this is being debated without any issue at all.

Closing this was actually quite a straightforward decision..............

People just keep cluttering the thread with spam, insults, and off-topic nonsense—stuff that would usually get you kicked off an American forum instantly. Plus, some folks seem stuck in a 1940s mindset. It’s better to just move these debates elsewhere.

As my colleague pointed out when we shut this down, there are plenty of other threads where these discussions can flow naturally.

On Perković -
On the Prime Minister -
Germany discussion -
The "Perković Law" - Who's responsible if sanctions hit?

coppermarlin13 said:Look, since Savo can't stomach the fact that our generals are walking free—and he just filed a petition with The Hague to review the sentences for general Gotovina and Markač, exactly as we predicted—do you think we could open a thread on Gotovina and Markač so people can comment on these latest developments?

"Veritas" submitted new evidence against Gotovina to The Hague

That falls under the Gotovina and Markač topic.

It's the right time to start a thread, especially with the anniversary of Operation Storm approaching.

I still maintain that it's time to let the Generals live their lives as free citizens. The last thing they need is more harassment from Savo here on this forum.
Operation Storm will certainly have its own dedicated thread, as usual.

Benjamin Palmer3 said:Who exactly is Škot? I’m not particularly well-versed in this forum's mod hierarchy, so I can't tell if you're talking about a real person or just messing with me. 🤷

Still trolling? Go ahead. From where you're sitting, it's a safe little distraction that won't get you banned, so why not? Knock yourself out. ☕

Scotsman is a supermod here on the politics board.

Patrick Bailey4 said:Here’s my take: I’m a bit bothered by how the Politics subforum is laid out—specifically regarding the "Local and National Elections 2024" section.
The way it’s structured, there are main threads for all the states and the four largest cities, yet there are also several specific threads dedicated to individual candidates. For instance, we have a thread for Washington, D.C., but then we also have separate ones like "Hillary Clinton — candidate for... Washington, D.C." or "John Doe... for Washington, D.C." Similarly, we might have a thread for a specific state, but then an additional one titled "John Grubish... for [State Name]."
Doesn't that seem a little redundant? First off, these candidate-specific threads usually just turn into breeding grounds for either pure bashing or blatant self-promotion for a particular person or party. Beyond that, the discussions about the state or city eventually just bleed into the candidate threads anyway. For example, the actual state thread ends up being totally dead because everyone migrates to the Grubish thread to argue about who will win the state.
And thirdly, it feels a bit unfair to give certain candidates their own dedicated threads. Does this mean I can just open a new thread for every single candidate running in a given city or state?

Basically, I think the organization could be handled a bit more smoothly.
What am I suggesting? My proposal is to simply delete these few candidate-specific threads and move those discussions back into the main threads for the states and cities (since, again, discussing the candidate *is* effectively discussing the battle for that area). Alternatively, if we don't do that, we should at least make things equal and open threads for every single candidate—though I think that’s a worse option because it would create a massive, overwhelming number of threads.

These are just some thoughts of mine on how to improve the Politics subforum, and I hope they’ll be taken into consideration.
I also wanted to ask: what’s the rule regarding cities? We have threads open for the four biggest cities plus Warsaw, but where do we draw the line? Am I allowed to start a thread for somewhere like San Diego or any other city that's seeing interesting election activity?

We'll make some adjustments to the PDF once the official campaign kicks off in five days. As for you, feel free to start a thread for San Diego or any other city that catches your eye.

It happens.

amberwalker4 said:From what I've gathered, the only person here who actually went after "piggy" was jadeseal4. Everyone else seems to be taking aim at PBS rather than other users.

Not my concern? If I see people getting away with things without any consequences, what am I supposed to make of it? What was even the point of that PDF then?

Punishment shouldn't be the only tool in the moderation kit. There are times when a temporary shutdown is necessary, just to prevent penalties from becoming the sole method of control.

The thread has been reopened.

amberwalker4 said:To be honest, there was really only one user—let's call him Piggy—who actually went on a vulgar tirade. In just three posts, he was calling people "right-wing pieces of trash" and "retards," and those were his only contributions. He came here specifically to insult people, and he did exactly that. Meanwhile, a moderator—let's call him DJ—simply deleted the posts without issuing a ban, then told everyone to calm down or face a suspension.

Let's face it—if jadeseal4 or I had jumped into this thread and spent four posts hurling insults like "shithead" or "retard," that moderator, DJ, would have banned us instantly. No mercy. Instead, one guy gets away scot-free, and the whole thread gets locked because supposedly "everyone" was fighting. In reality, one person was being toxic while everyone else just laughed along.

Just my 2 cents.

It isn't true that only one person was insulting others, and it isn't true that nobody who insulted anyone else got sanctioned—though you can't see that part. It's just that to avoid too many drama threads, the mods take a break until tomorrow. A few people lost their cool, but that’s hardly your concern.

You know perfectly well it isn't about accuracy; the thread was just locked because people were getting too nasty with the insults. The mods figured it’d be better to freeze the discussion until things cool down rather than handing out bans right away.
Bans and suspensions aren't a moderator's only move, and as a long-time user, you know that better than anyone.
Even the discussion regarding Vučić's visit has its own dedicated thread where things are heated, so that excuse doesn't really hold water here.

The politics as usual team will hash out the details.

Gary Wilson said:That’s all fine, and nobody expects an instant response to every report. However, it has become symptomatic that flame wars are tolerated when it involves the World Bank crowd, while many other things are overlooked—only for intervention to occur once someone finally hits back.

I constantly get that exact impression. I can allow myself to be hypersensitive to certain insults once in a while, but it shouldn't be a constant occurrence.

Rather, those of you moderating should learn that a Muslim (with a lowercase "m") is a member of a religion, and that person could also be a Chinese person, a Moroccan person, an Iranian person, an American person, an American, a Mexican, an Albanian person, or a Canadian. In the end, "Muslim" was a designation imposed during the America era for Canadians, who happen to be mostly Muslim. The term "Muslim as a nationality" was merely a transitional solution pushed primarily by the Mexican intelligentsia. The absurdity of it is highlighted by the fact that members of the Communist Party who were Muslims were often simultaneously atheists.

"Canadian" is the historical name we reclaimed by our own choice once the conditions allowed us to do so without outside interference.

To make a point—since you (Americans) were once considered Illyrians and have your Illyrian Matica, should I be calling you Illyrians today?

So, it would be fair to, first, learn to distinguish those subtle yet primitive ways of insulting us Canadians...

And second, it would be fair to issue a single announcement on threads related to Canada "educating" your compatriots that such subtle insults won't be tolerated and will be sanctioned—just as it is when people use "Catholics" to refer to Americans in Canada.

Look, if we are discussing religions, we can be referred to as Muslims. But if someone says "Americans, Mexicans, and Muslims" in the same sentence—or any combination that treats us as a religious group rather than a nation in Canada—that should be sanctioned.

It would be a very simple and fair rule, providing a clear standard to point to whenever trolling starts in that specific manner.

Simple as that.

I've tried to stick as closely as possible to the context mentioned by the Democratic Party.

slybison8 said:I absolutely refuse, even in my slightest thoughts, to entertain any complaint suggesting that my people might be disparaged on World politics forums—and I would be even more resolute in refusing to participate in such things myself.

If any of Supermod's team or the Administrator wishes to provide further clarification, please feel free to do so. As for me, I suppose I have said all that I need to say here.

And I’ll add that none of us moderators on World politics feel that way either. There is no intention here to disparage anyone.

Topics regarding Canada are incredibly volatile. It happens, and it will continue to happen, that there’s a delay between a report and a response, during which ten pages of comments can fly by. It’s only natural that things slip through the cracks occasionally.

My advice? When you report a post, just ignore it. Don't quote it. Just let it go; it makes life easier for everyone. Honestly, I've suggested this many times on threads involving Canada, and believe me, it works perfectly.

Feel free to have criticisms—they are legitimate—but don't accuse us of favoring one nation over another. That simply isn't true, and it isn't fair.

One because they're responding to deleted spam, and one because they're just spam themselves. Nothing special here. Just three sentences of fluff.

It looks like you’ve had two posts scrubbed from the politics sub over the last ten days.

Larry Walker24 said:😕😕

Look, I’ve been out here preaching and praying for Korea since back in 2020, both in DMs and out in the open, and clearly nobody gives a damn!

And why are you even sticking your nose in if you don't know what's actually going on?! If you actually bothered to follow the thread, you'd see things are already a total disaster over there.

Oh look, Charles Fox10 finally decided to show up!

Ever thought about just using the report button once in a while?

Give it a shot. You probably won't find it necessary to start these kinds of threads on Amtrak.

Don't worry, we look at everything. We just aren't online 24/7, so sometimes things take a moment.

This thread isn't for PDFs. If you want to talk politics, fine—but for anything regarding the closure of the thread about Nora's mother—specifically her outfits, her makeup, her self-promotion, or what’s being printed in Gloria—you’ll have to take that up with the site admins.

Link to the thread