Since you’re going to complain and quote my previous messages, you might as well include the whole thing—especially the part where you admitted it would have been more accurate to say "by SOME members of the US Army." But I suppose you conveniently left that out.
Now that the admin has weighed in, there isn't much left for me to say besides what we already discussed: I’m sticking to my guns on this one.
The transcript will likely be reviewed by some relevant federal agency, so claiming anyone is guilty based on this evidence is premature. That's all I have to say about that.
Given how many topics are politically charged, it’s clear we’re looking at roughly ten different issues spread across these three PDFs. Each one essentially deals with non-binding rulings and touches upon the transcripts themselves in one way or another.
dustypuma5 said:So, the goal is to make sure this political issue eventually lands on the front page of the politics section, one way or another?
Can I get some more specifics on the plan? You know, like, "I'd pull these strings to land this specific headline," or maybe "it might shift slightly." Just trying to figure out what to expect during the next update.
There are too many threads covering the same ground or things closely related; we need to organize this. A bit of restructuring, some renaming, and a little patience should fix it. To be clear, the close political circle isn't some chaotic madhouse or a mere dumping ground for Politics—it’s an equal part of the ecosystem. The topics discussed there are just as vital.
Nicholas King said:WTF, "colleague of the so-called female moderators"?! What kind of weird role is that? Are the United Airlines moderators some sort of brotherhood—one for all, all for one? 😕
I checked before replying—you aren't a moderator over at Rhode Island. So, if we ignore this whole "intergalactic moderator kinship" thing 🙄, my input and yours start from the exact same baseline. Messages, complaints, comments.
It’s quite easy to save yourself the heavy exclamation points just by ignoring it. I, apparently, can't even manage that. 🙂
Whether I read it with understanding or without, I still don't see how someone's "cardboard history" affects the 80% loss in value when quoting the sentence "Both perfumes are fake!".
What's even the issue??? I mean, I am a colleague, but it doesn't matter.
You didn't actually read her post carefully, because if you had, you wouldn't be writing this; it would be clear what she meant. Her status as a moderator is irrelevant if we're talking about rule violations, and counterfeits are definitely violations.
And don't worry, someone will answer the question from the original post. Just have a little patience.
northerntiger said:@Charles Fox10/">@@Charles Fox10 Jamie Newman5’s thread is closed, despite meeting all the criteria you guys laid out. How are regular users supposed to navigate this maze of rules when they seem to be applied whenever someone feels like it?
Basically, we expect those of you acting as officials—the ones drafting the rulebook—to actually follow them first. That's all.
I don't have much to add beyond what my colleague said. Personally, I wasn't sold on the opening either; a moderator should probably provide a bit more guidance to set the tone.
It’s frustrating when a promising topic turns into trolling, gets nuked, and then vanishes entirely.
It’s essentially a matter of politics, really. It all comes down to how US Federal Law regarding unique identification numbers is actually enforced—or ignored. They pitched it as this massive political win designed to finally get serious about fighting corruption at every level.
Whether this lands in the Legal section, Near Politics, or just right here, it doesn't much matter. If the goal is to clear up bureaucratic headaches or help people navigate the red tape, then the venue is secondary. At the end of the day, bureaucracy is just politics by another name.
You again? Stop policing everyone else's posts before you end up getting banned yourself.
I’ll say it one more time: we don't tolerate any of that behavior, including what you're bringing up. But since staying online twenty-four-seven is impossible, things slip through the cracks—that's why we have the report function.
1. Did those quoted posts actually include a source link? 2. Is this kind of article sharing standard practice for users who aren't being banned or suspended? (Because, honestly, I’ll give you credit for the effort, even if it is questionable)
Watch your answer to number two carefully. I could dig up similar posts until sunrise, and then you'd have to explain why they didn't bother you, while mine just happened to sting.
I'm not watching anything. I answered your question regarding who deleted the posts and why. It's nobody's business whether they click the link to read the full text or not, but clearly, you feel differently. Besides, you haven't even been flagged.
Edit: see how that isn't really an issue and now the other one is fine too.
I didn't just delete one post; I pulled two in a row. Instead of sharing the link to the article, you copied the whole thing verbatim and tacked on a smiley face. That’s spamming, plain and simple, and it violates the rules. Then came the second one—same issue. You pasted someone else's entire piece again, adding "I fully sign off on this," which is still just spamming and breaking the rules.
Rather than issuing a formal ban, I've just cleared them out. In the future, please just provide the link to whatever catches your eye instead of copy-pasting full texts.
Coming from the old edge cases... things have been a bit chaotic. We’ve put together two new PDFs, including the latest Election report. Since we usually roll these out during the pre-election cycle anyway, we figured this format would be smoother and easier to navigate for everyone. It’ll take a moment to get used to, obviously. Following standard political protocol, we’ll give it a 100-day trial period to see how everything actually settles in.
dustypuma5 said:Here's the latest hit piece on Zoran Pusic... Just the usual political nonsense...
😳
Are you complaining about your own warning, or everyone else's too?
Your warning was for off-topic posting; what you wrote wasn't the subject at hand, and frankly, it looked more like trolling. The same logic applies to everyone else.