Posts by Charles Fox10

Now that we’ve untangled this mess, I’ll ask again.

Which post is actually civil, and which one adds more value to a constructive debate?

Henry Hernandez7 said:Well, it isn't everyone, just most people. Everyone in this thread seems baffled and wondering why their posts are being flagged.

I'll say it again. Wouldn't it be more logical to adjust the rules to fit the majority?

Last edited by Uncle Sam: 10/06/2011 at 2:03 PM. These rules have been in effect since then.

The rule you're complaining about actually makes sense. A post consisting of nothing but a single link without any context on what it's about is just... odd.

Users come here to debate. Expecting everyone to click a random link just to see if it's relevant is asking too much. It's a waste of time, especially if they've already seen it.

For example:

1. A post that breaks the rules:

http://www.example-us-site.com/thread/66911

2. A post that follows the rules:

http://www.example-us-site.com/thread/66911

Links aren't a substitute for actual writing. When posting a link, you should briefly explain what's behind it (a title, a summary, or a key quote). It needs to be clear how the page relates to the discussion.

One final question.

Which type of post is more polite, and which one actually contributes to a constructive conversation?

Henry Hernandez7 said:Why insist on having things your way when so many users have their own style? Isn't it more logical for an individual to just adapt to the majority?

Well, feel free to change the rules once everyone gets tired of them.

Or just certain people???
At least we went out of our way to explain how to use hyperlinks properly.

And isn't it common sense to actually read the style guide before you start posting?

Are we really asking for much?

My favorite part is always the chat thread that erupts once administration makes a final call. Then you have people acting shocked when the bans start rolling in. Quite amusing.

Hey, Slavs?😬

OT
Beautiful our homeland.

We’ve got talent, but our leadership—both on the sidelines and at the league level—is a mess. At this point, the only thing that might decide this game is a bit of pure, stubborn spite from a few players. As for that water boy on the bench, I’m not expecting anything remotely intelligent or useful from him.

I have a certain fondness for this kind of officiating, even if we really deserved the win regardless of all those referee antics.

Alexander Lewis said:You have a thread for "Why NOT," yet you shut down the "Why YES" one.
If anyone thinks that’s being neutral or fair, they’re mistaken.
A balanced approach would be:
1. Poll
2. general topic Reddit
3. why yes
4. why no

By removing either 3 or 4, you've effectively killed half the conversation. It's shameful.

So, apparently, there isn't enough coverage on the USA here?

Are you in favor of California joining the USA - final poll

Why I am for/against the USA joining - one post per person (strictly no commenting)

Why YES or NO to the USA? Reasons, campaigns, and protests

Are media polls about joining the USA rigged?

The USA joining and the pre-referendum campaign - general topic

What if we reject joining the USA?
http://www.reddit.com/r/plus

Plus, occasionally someone posts something about the USA in the threads regarding Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

But it's not like a few users decide to start a brand new USA thread every single day just because they can't express themselves in the existing ones.

Thanks, installed it and everything's running smoothly at 5 bucks.

James Patel20 said:Here. It looks like Obama's office denied the greeting.

http://tacno.net/Novost.aspx?id=12467

We could have posted this properly in the thread since you didn't lock it.

Not impatient. Just being fair. 🙂

We gave notice.

Lock works.

There’s absolutely nothing about this on the official Office of the President website.

http://www.whitehouse.gov

Fair point. We used to have seven of them, then cut it down to four, and now we’ve got way too many active again.

Here is what’s left:

Why not join the European Union? Arguments, campaigns, and protests

EU accession and the pre-referendum campaign—general topic

Poll regarding EU accession

These should be enough for anyone looking to weigh in on whether America's involvement with the European Union is a good idea or not.

bluerider41 said:Since when did the Family Law of the United States suddenly become the gold standard for accuracy and fairness? That doesn't give you any right to label us as "sick" or whatever else. It’s just not happening.

Pure homophobia right here:

Where did this happen? Please send a link.

neongull99 said:Charles Fox10, let's be real here—to you, the moderator observer is Einstein. Just stay out of it and let me smooth things over with him.
You give the impression you don't even read the threads you supposedly "moderate," which is likely the truth. I'm practically offering to write Anderlon a free bot to automate whatever it is you do.

You cherry-picked a third of the post, stripping away the context, and proved you lack any sense of humor.
Let's look at the full post:

To clarify, the term "sickos" was referring to comments in the Daily News where people were calling for war and the expulsion of Americans just because someone (or perhaps a gust of wind) knocked a Varta-zastava flag off its mast in Livno.

Go ahead and smooth things over with your colleague; I have nothing against it. In fact, I find it quite interesting to watch how he handles things and how much heart he puts into it. Once you settle things and align your writing with the rules, I'm sure we won't have any more friction on this forum.

Phrases like "he referred to," "I thought," "I heard," "they told me," "secret forums," or "some informants"—save those inaccuracies for other topics where things are a bit more relaxed. Stick to the facts and everything will be fine.

And believe it or not, sometimes a single word in a long post is enough to trigger a penalty, much like the minor warning you received.

And then there's your mention of Einstein... honestly, it gave me a laugh.

Just so you know, the moderator observer won't be working alone to ensure we keep this thread following the rules; we want everyone here to have a decent experience.

I just issued a custom warning regarding inappropriate language and flagged it for management. I missed the part where you insulted an entire nation earlier, and since I can't retract the current warning to issue a different one, this is what we have.

Isn't that a broken people? They've been broken for ages by their own war propaganda. Yet they lack the guts to kick out the Office of the High Representative and actually "liberate" Canada. It’s no wonder they get under everyone's skin under these circumstances.

But it is Christmas, so whatever. It doesn't matter.

You’ve got a point, fundamentally. But isn't it just common sense that voters should actually know the names of the politicians they're intending to vote for? Elections are serious business—they shape our entire future—so I think it's fair to expect people to put in a little effort to figure out who they might eventually be sending to US Congress.

frozenlynx30 said:Is anyone actually moderating this subforum? 🤷 It's cluttered with Gallup polls for specific districts where nobody even votes. Plus, the general popularity poll isn't locked, even though it’s nearly a year old and totally irrelevant now... so we just have two identical polls sitting there. 🙂 And why is there still a tag saying the "What kind of Election Law do we need" thread was moved? It’s been stuck like that for months. 🤷

The polls are open for each district individually, along with the top topic for each area. Whether people actually vote in them is entirely up to the users.

As for the moved thread regarding Election Law, it sits on the main Politics page because Election Law is a political issue. It's also listed in the Elections PDF to prevent unnecessary duplicate threads from opening.

You're right about the general forum poll; the old one is closed, and the new one (yours) is live.

Joshua Martinez7 said:By claiming I should have been hit with more strikes just for trolling or going off-topic, you’re basically just pushing your own biased agenda. When I hopped onto this thread last night, I saw people who don't see eye to eye with me getting slapped with red cards—honestly, it was totally overkill and pointless. It was pretty obvious right then that any further comment from my side would be sanctioned regardless of what I actually wrote. Even if I had stayed silent, the outcome would’ve been just as skewed: those two users would've been red-carded for no reason (meaningless, really—one could've topped out at a 10-point penalty for being off-topic), while I—the guy you’re accusing of needing more penalties for trolling—get nothing. And let’s not forget Smurf, who spent the entire thread aggressively picking fights with anyone who disagreed with him.

I’ll leave the "trolling" calls to an objective judge, though I haven't called anyone an idiot or told them to get lost, nor did the moderator have to scrub profanity from my posts. But as far as off-topic behavior goes? I'm definitely not the culprit here. In fact, I actually filed several reports against off-topic comments—comments I chose not to engage with personally, hoping they'd be deleted, just like I noted in my reports. Those off-topic posts weren't removed, which only serves to encourage more off-topic nonsense.

P.S. Just read the thread again—you'll see plenty of other users took Smurf’s rambling as nothing more than useless bragging (aka trolling).

There’s already a dedicated thread for Expatriation and living in Canada, so there's zero reason to open a new one titled Canada: The reality of life in a developed nation. And yet, even that isn't being sanctioned.

After Smurf ignored your warnings, you still haven't found the nerve to actually give him a red card; instead, you just edit his posts and issue more warnings. If I had told Smurf he was an idiot and to beat it, I would've been slapped with a penalty before I could even blink. And I'm talking a full 100-point strike.

I've said all I can about the red cards. As for the duplicate thread, it's only so that topic stays within the Diaspora, though I'm sure there's more talk about Canada on Reddit.
This specific thread is about a UN user who spent nearly a year hyping up his move to Canada. Once he finally left, he just wanted to share his impressions with his colleagues from the UN who had weighed in on his plan. There really wasn't a need to post certain details there; they didn't belong.