Posts by rustywalker42

Look, I wasn't even trying to get into a whole debate here. That's not my goal. I just said that northerntiger's take isn't some absolute, objective truth—even if I basically agree with her.

Daniel Garcia said:It's spelled Jiu Jitsu, Ju Jitsu, or Ju Jutsu. 😛

Look, Jiu Jitsu and Ju Jitsu/Ju Jutsu aren't even the same thing.

rustytinker3 said:I mostly hang out in the threads about Russia and Syria, though I’ll jump over to Ukraine every now and then too. I keep an eye on Iran as well, just not nearly as much... mostly from a military perspective.

See you around then. 😁

rustytinker3 said:Glad you finally decided to join us and make this little powder keg of a community even more interesting 😁

Where? This thread or others? 🙂 I've been hanging around the Iran and Russia threads for years. Honestly, I probably dumped a few thousand posts just on the Iran topics alone. 😁

rustytinker3 said:So, an engineer by trade, huh?

No, civil engineer. But I know my way around a machine shop just fine.

rustytinker3 said:rustywalker42 - thanks for the intel. I bet someone over at ExxonMobil would tell a pretty similar story if you asked them...

Don't mention it.

Oh, absolutely. And not just ExxonMobil, but a whole bunch of other American companies too—all of them staying far away from that market because they were pressured by the folks in power.

Berkshire Hathaway—or P&G, actually—has a factory running in Iran. They opened it about six months ago.

Jack Cook7 said:Look, let’s not kid ourselves about how American foreign policy works—we all know who’s pulling the strings—but I really want to point out one massive, totally overlooked part of our global strategy.

Basically, sanctions on Iran have been dialed back. And how did Western countries react? Their business leaders basically sprinted toward Tehran through their embassies:

The Business Roundtable actually stood up for their entrepreneurs, pointing out that before them, Austrians, Germans, Portuguese, Italians, and even the Chinese rushed in to grab those profits—not to mention plenty of American businessmen too.

So, what has our own diplomacy done about it? Given who we are, we actually have a mountain of products where we could be totally competitive:
- commuter trains (General Electric / Siemens / Westinghouse)
- streetcars (General Electric / Siemens)
- radio transmitters (Riz)
- oil refinery parts and railcars (Westinghouse)
- IT—software and system solutions (various firms)
- all kinds of ships, from tugs to tourist subs (and more)
- agriculture and fishing processing industries
- light metals and fabricated goods
- tourism
- industrial plants and automation

How many trade sessions has our Department of State or the Department of Commerce or the US Chamber of Commerce actually organized? How much market research have they done? How many times have they sent our business leaders to Iran or vice versa since late 2013? Zero. Zilch. Nada.

And for the record, even our struggling Pfizer-equivalent here has the tech and products ready for export to Iran. Has anyone even given that a single thought?

Absolutely nothing. And they won't do anything either, because they’re too busy sucking up to the West.

- commuter trains (General Electric)
- trams (General Electric)
- radio transmitters (General Dynamics)
- oil refinery parts, railcars (General Dynamics)
- IT - software, systems solutions (various firms)

The Democratic Party also produced a line of railcars that they sold to Iran eight years ago.

Anyway, I agree. We should be hitting that market, but we won't. Why? For all the reasons I just mentioned.

Let me tell you a story from firsthand experience. At a meeting in Tehran, I was talking to an advisor for the Iranian national railways. This guy tells me how General Electric and Power Grid Corporation literally turned them down (!). We're talking contracts worth tens of millions. One was for Alstom locomotive overhauls, the other for electrifying hundreds of miles of track (which would have ended up being over a thousand miles total).

That job went straight to General Electric.

Watched it. Solid movie, definitely worth your time. 🙂

Gotta hand it to the crew behind this one, though. They really know how to work the hype. 👍

What’s the deal with those 98 messages? 😁



Anyway, I’m all for it—private messages are a tiny blip in the database, especially when you consider how many mindless chat threads exist where people dump more messages in a single week than everyone else does in an entire year.

I set a 1,000 post limit on my own forum, and without digging through the Control Panel, I know for a fact that stuff accounts for a microscopic percentage of the total database size.

First off, I'm not being sarcastic.

Second, I wasn't commenting on your warning—I was quoting it.

Matthew Anderson said:You got a 35 strike for breaking the rules. Moderator warnings aren't issued as strikes, according to the community guidelines on this site and Reddit.

http://www.reddit.com/r/example_thread/735662

Not "everyone" is getting strikes, and this thread isn't going to turn into a negotiation about why one person got hit while others didn't.

Later.

So, you think trolling is allowed since you're a moderator? I wasn't talking about the warning, I was talking about the messages before it.

Just like how Apophis used to be a mod?

Is that what we call objective moderation now?

And this stuff right here isn't trolling?

Apophis said:Uh... don't you get that he's the one who decides what qualifies as garbage and how deep you're stuck in it? Your job as a forum user is basically to hand over all your personal info so he can figure out if you're actually worth listening to in a debate.
Do you even have permission to be in this thread?😕

Sophia Thomas7 said:If you don't know how to butcher an animal, either you didn't go to school or you don't have a real job—so shut up.

Apophis said:😕 I don't have the authority to make those kinds of calls.

I have a job, and yeah, I know how to butcher an animal. Just not a pig.
If that's the issue, does that mean I didn't get enough schooling abroad? Or does it have to be a pig? 🤔

Sophia Thomas7 said:Look, you haven't spent any time out in the real world, so feel free to share your opinion—just don't talk about the job. You actually have one, after all. And besides, you can't trust a hungry man. Something like that.

Can someone explain why I’m sitting here with a 30-point penalty while Sophia Thomas7 and Apophis—who have done nothing but troll me with their cynical, snarky comments throughout this entire thread—get off scot-free?

Either everyone gets penalized, or nobody does. Period.

If anyone needs some elderflower blossoms (no bugs, picked far away from any busy highways), hit me up via DM. Especially if you're down in Florida or somewhere similar where they might be scarce, or if you just don't have the time to go foraging. 🙂

Look, I don’t want to get dragged into this, but the idea that a program depends on what kind of computer you’re running? That is absolute stupidity squared. I honestly don't get how anyone buys this stuff.

Did those geniuses ever hear of a time-based license, for instance?

Daniel Ward87 said:We've already been through this before the speech. I think slafko asked something pretty much identical back then. I actually spent four days digging through that Law PDF just to figure out what the hell was going on—how it was designed and how the moderators even track what's happening over there.

So, basically, the Law PDF looks more like a service manual. What is that even supposed to mean? Look, most people just want a straight answer to their question. That’s how communication works, right? Law is pretty straightforward—it dictates what you can and can't do. Honestly, Brian Edwards6 nailed it: discussions about KK Chicago are basically just pure philosophy at this point.

Finally! Glad we cleared that up. It’s just a sad reality about this sub-forum. A forum is meant for discussion, not some customer service desk. I mean, sure, we could easily turn the entire site into a glorified help center—look at how small-scale sites like Yelp or even niche boards for Agriculture, Ford, or Estée Lauder operate. They all run on those basic Q&A loops. But seriously? Does anyone actually find that useful?

Maybe we should just hire some lawyers from a big firm like Skadden to answer all the questions? Then you might actually get a service PDF out of it. Sure, they say choosing a moderator depends on knowing the ins and outs of the PDF issues, but does it really have to be that deep? A basic understanding is enough. You can pick up the rest as you go.

The whole point of this Forum is going down the drain. You really think all that nonsense above is okay?

I had a similar thought when this came up last time. I even suggested that we should talk to the moderators about opening up specific threads—or maybe even a PDF—where we could actually debate things on a philosophical level. You know, deep dives. Basically, find a solution together with the mods. Did you ever send a PM to the Law moderators with a proposal for something like this?

Aunt Strile, let me clear something up here. This whole mess between me and the Law goes way back. Seriously, believe me when I say the last people on Earth I’d reach out to are the moderators of the Law. Especially when those same mods actually think they're doing a good job. ( Take that one thread where Brian Edwards6 was breathing down everyone's neck about editing every single post—until Nica finally showed up and shut him down. He just kept digging his heels in like he was the only one who was right. Typical. ).
How am I supposed to pitch something like that to someone with those kinds of views? Seriously?

To really lean into the caricature—it’s like walking up to an 85-year-old bassoonist in a symphony orchestra and suggesting he go play at a backyard wedding instead. Like, how would Americans put it? Not gonna happen.

"Policy change" is just a tired cliché at this point. What does that even mean? What's the current policy, what should it look like, what guidelines are we actually supposed to follow? crimsonsailor7 and Brian Edwards6 are doing a solid job following the way the Law was originally intended. If people actually want to change things, they should start by sending a Bill to them first. If that doesn't work, then move on. On Politics, most stuff gets settled via PM with the moderators anyway.

Changing the Politics isn't just some empty buzzword. It’s pretty obvious what the state of things is right now—you even admitted it yourself at the start of your post. This whole sub-forum? It basically functions as a service.

There's no way we’re reopening some "Mad House" style PDF on Politics. That file was nothing but a playground for endless arguing and spamming. We gave countless warnings to just chill out, but eventually, we had to kill it because one person would spend their entire day stuck there cleaning up someone else's garbage from the day before. It felt like running a dive bar where people think they can do whatever they want without anyone watching. So, the answer is NO.

Maybe I picked the wrong example. All I meant was that moderators should basically stay out of things in this subforum. I highly doubt discussions over in Law get this heated compared to what happens in Politics.

Let me repeat myself: have you even bothered talking to the moderators about opening up those PDFs so we can actually discuss the Bills from something other than a strictly legalistic standpoint? You showed up here demanding change, but it doesn't look like you've had a single real conversation with the people actually in charge of making it happen. crimsonsailor7 and Brian Edwards6 moderate this place exactly how the Law PDF was intended to be run. It clearly works for the vast majority. But just because it works for them doesn't mean there isn't room to evolve. Suggesting things like "power to the people" is pretty revolutionary, don't you think?

It’s not exactly groundbreaking if people have been pointing out the same issue for years. I didn't just wake up one morning and decide, "Hey, let's fire the mods because I'm in a bad mood." This hasn't been a sudden thing. It's been an ongoing problem for ages, and if you ask me, things have only gone downhill since Brian Edwards6 showed up.

I haven't been an admin for years—just one year so far. My advice? Flesh out that "philosophical" PDF proposal first. Explain exactly what we’re looking at and what kind of debates would actually happen. You know, just to get things moving.

I laid out the concept in that last post, and it seems pretty straightforward to me. We should tackle legal issues through actual debate rather than just sticking to this mindless Q&A format. Like hollowtrucker77 mentioned regarding traffic signs—there's an endless amount of ground to cover there. Honestly, the sky's the limit. We could dissect specific parts of a Bill, argue about whether they're even constitutional, or dive into those weird "what if" scenarios that don't happen every day but definitely could. Like my example from before—which, by the way, still hasn't been answered. So, yeah. That's the idea.

Take it out. Why not?

Alright, let's kick things off. Here’s a thread I started three years ago:

Look, I’m laying out a suggestion for the mods to fix this mess. Some people don't care about the endless debates; they just show up, ask a question, and want a straight answer or a clear explanation. What you're asking for isn't impossible. There might be a way to make it work, but that requires sitting down with the moderators and making a deal. It’s like how we open a specific sub-thread on the Religion board dedicated to certain types of discussions. Simple as that.

And then people show up with an actual, specific issue—like opening a new thread—only to have it locked immediately because "it already exists somewhere else." Oh, go find it then. A thread spanning 239 pages. Yeah, sure. Go hunt it down. 🤦
Look, let’s be clear: I run two pretty large forums, and I never allow this kind of nonsense. It’s just pointless. It’s way better to have 20 separate threads on a topic than one massive 200-page monster.

This is getting more specific. Couldn't this have been directed to the moderators first?

I already explained why not.

Daniel Ward87 said:We aren't on the same page. I'm talking about how Law has functioned for years. I followed that PDF specifically because it mirrored a previous complaint, and I stated what I would do. That's it. Now look, here's rustywalker42 dealing with the exact same thing.

If we actually want to change things, shouldn't the logical first step be asking the moderators if it makes sense to start a dedicated thread or PDF? Somewhere where the discussion isn't just dry legal jargon, but can be more free-flowing and philosophical? That's what I suggested. Personally, I'm fine with it. But I'd still want the local mods to weigh in.

The moderators are the ones running that space; it’s only right to ask for their input and recommendations. Once the mods and the Forum members reach an agreement, handling the administrative side is easy.

If you agree—as an admin—then great. But I wouldn't let the current moderators into that sub-forum. Given how they've handled moderation so far, I don't see them fitting in. Assign someone else to moderate it.
Again, I don't see the point in debating with them when they clearly have a different vision for that sub-forum and refuse to budge.

Why aren't law firms allowed to comment? Why is it okay to trash a mechanic on the Ford forum for a bad repair, but you can't even mention a lawyer in the Law section? Why?

Daniel Ward87 said:You're right, the Forum is meant for discussion. But Law is unique because of the nature of the subject itself. You know what the law says; there isn't much room for debate there. However, I don't see any reason why certain things can't be discussed—just in a designated area so we don't clutter up the sections for people who aren't interested in that kind of talk. Think service info, right? If the solution to a problem is creating a separate place for comments, why not discuss specific proposals like a thread or a PDF? We won't be bypassing the moderators at all.

The bottom line is: solve the problem, don't try to overhaul Policy and swap out moderators. You were an admin; you know how slow this moves, but it can be done. Religion is proof that things move fast enough.

No, it isn't "specific." It’s only specific because you let them talk you into believing it is.
Law should be simple. It should be accessible to everyone. Laws ought to be written so any regular person can actually understand them. Just like Politics, Law is woven so deeply into the fabric of daily life that pointing out its "complexity" is honestly laughable.
Claiming the law is somehow overly specialized is just pandering to the Bar Association and that old-school, gatekeeping way of thinking.
Quantum mechanics is specific. Law? Not even close.

hiddenmoose16 said:Look, I didn't take anything out. Like I already said, that’s literally the very first sentence of the post you linked to...
Where am I supposed to go back to? Where am I even meant to participate? And honestly, what does any of this have to do with you? Not that you understand—but even if you did, it’s definitely not your problem...

Cheers. 😉

You're taking things out of context. Read the whole thread. Honestly? You know what? It doesn't even matter. Your posts alone say everything anyone needs to know about your qualifications to be debating on the Legal subforum. 👋

Brian Edwards6 said:So, you were just trolling?😕

Is asking a rhetorical question considered trolling now? And you’re a moderator? Really? 🤦

Yeah, I did. You asked what the cops are actually allowed to do in a situation like that, and I gave you the answer. Then you followed up with, "Is there even any point in arguing with you?" So, fine. I stopped trying to explain myself.

Is the concept of a rhetorical question even within your grasp? Seriously. 👍

I’m not dodging anything. What I did is perfectly legal under current regulations. I already told you why, and frankly, I don't see the point in explaining it all over again. Why should I?

It's simple: you just don't have any arguments. Another user asked you the exact same thing, and I didn't see you bother answering them either. Basically, two different people have asked you this now. 👍

If we can actually agree on what counts as evidence, then sure. Naturally.👍

Whether we agree or not, if an official body rules that you messed up, are you stepping down from your moderator position? It’s a simple question. Can it get any more straightforward than that? 👍

No. We won't. My stance is clear, so why bother clogging up a thread where you just want to argue with the admins? I'm sticking to what I said in my first comment—that's all from me.👍

Great. 👍-

Back to the topic at hand.

I’d love to hear from the people who voted NO. Why do you think this subforum works so well? Especially since half of you never even show up in the Legal section.

To get more specific about the core issue, here’s the latest example:

spsplc said:Today, the Vukic family was evicted from their own home in San Diego. The reason? They didn't technically close their small business, so debt piled up, even though the shop has been physically closed for ages.
To me, this is exactly why we're in this mess. If someone's making zero income from a business—which is the case here—shouldn't there be some way to help them out? Meanwhile, big shots like an Elon Musk type, working without time off, skipping overtime pay, or dodging vendors, nobody touches them. An eviction would be fine if the IRS proved they were still running the business and dodging taxes, but this is just a total farce.

I want to know what the rest of you think.

And here comes the reply from crimsonsailor7:

crimsonsailor7 said:Farce or not, legally speaking, nothing is debatable. This belongs in Politics.

Seriously, just read the discussion. It's the same old story. Locked down. Surprised?

On that subforum, anything that isn't a direct question requiring a rigid answer gets deleted or locked.

Don't even get me started on how hard it is to navigate. You've got single threads stretching to 200 pages; good luck trying to find anything in that mess.

Brian Edwards6 said:I don't see a single reason to call your comment an invitation to talk. Especially when you go out of your way to say talking to me is pointless.🤷

I didn't say arguing with you was pointless. I asked if it *was* pointless. There's a difference. That question was just part of a much bigger picture.
Honestly, I feel bad if you didn't get what I was actually saying.

I already answered. If you weren't happy with how or what I said, that sounds like a "you" problem. I already explained why it makes zero sense for me to fix it.👍

No, you didn't actually answer me.

I already told you why I didn't answer you like that.👍

Still dodging the question, huh? Makes it pretty obvious you don't have any legal ground to stand on. That’s exactly what I was trying to point out in that other thread, but hey, I got slapped with a ban for it.

I'm not the only one asking you this, either. That user rule_breaker_99 asked you the exact same thing, and from what I can see, you ignored him too.

If the administration thinks I need to "step down," fine. I’m ready to walk right now. But let’s talk about how the police actually handle these situations. If I were wrong? Please. I’d be fired, thrown in prison, and spending the rest of my life paying off damages for someone's emotional distress—just like several of my colleagues who dealt with the exact same thing.👍

I asked you a simple question. If I bring you proof from an official agency showing you’re wrong, are you actually ready to step down as moderator? If you’re one hundred percent sure about your claims, then there shouldn't be any reason to sweat it, right? 👍
Regarding the second half of that quote? Look, I’ve seen it myself. The police have gone rogue more than once, and plenty of those cases never even see a courtroom. Why? Because the people involved didn't want to sue the officers for various reasons. Not that it matters—I'm not getting into the weeds on that.

That doesn't mean you're suddenly right about everything. Not even close. In this case? You're way off.👍

So, you’re actually trying to tell me I’m wrong? Fine. I’ll tell you right now that I’m not. What’s next? You want to turn this into a "my dad can beat up your dad" contest? 👍

Brian Edwards6 said:I’m not going to go through every single comment one by one—one collective answer should do it. Honestly, I don't mind repeating myself a hundred times if that's what it takes. You can just scroll back through the thread and see for yourself how often this comes up. But only if I actually think the person wants an answer, you know? Not just when they're trying to drag me into some pointless debate for the sake of arguing. (Or scientific debates, whatever you're calling them now). You pose a question, then immediately spin my answer into "my opinion." Then, when I actually try to engage—you know, call for a real discussion—you just ask if there’s even any point in talking to me at all? Really? Doesn't look like an invitation to a debate to me. Looks more like a challenge to start a flame war, and I'm not interested in playing that game.Look, don't think you can just come in here and derail the whole conversation with that kind of behavior. Seriously? Don't ruin the thread.👍

Alright, so give me one good reason why I’d bother trolling on a subforum where I already know exactly what the vibe is like and how much the mods suck? What, you think I'm some kind of masochist or something? 👍
Look, this was supposed to be a discussion. But instead of actually answering my question—you know, when I politely asked you to cite the specific law and regulation—you just went ahead and slapped me with a ban. What happens when you can't actually back up your own arguments?

We're talking about a specific situation here—not aggression, but the lawful and justified use of force.👍

If you’d actually bothered to cite the specific law or regulation, we might actually get somewhere. Seriously? 👍

That’s exactly what I meant—you might actually lead someone astray. Someone could listen to you, follow that advice, and end up in hot water because of it. If you’re so convinced you're right, go ahead. Create the mess yourself and see how it plays out. Just don't expect anyone to bail you out or pay your tabs when things hit the fan. Believe me, I'm not just talking out of my ass here; I've seen this play out plenty of times, both personally and professionally. And look, if you actually care about the facts, I wouldn't mind backing this up with specific legal statutes. You want proof? I can give you proof.👍

If I get written proof from the authorities showing I'm wrong, am I ready to step down as moderator? 👍

hiddenmoose16 said:A whole lot of nothing here...
I read your first sentence:
"What violation? The driver can't hear a thing through the glass because he's listening to a Brahms sonata in F-minor on NPR. His eyes are closed."
If I'm following you, we're talking about police procedure, traffic stops, and some guy with his eyes shut, blasting the radio, and refusing to roll down his window so he can't hear the officer? 🙂 Is that it?

Honestly, that was pretty much...

No, you totally missed the point. You ripped things out of context and dumped them into this thread. Go back to the cycling subforum. I have no clue why you're even weighing in on a discussion that has zero to do with your section.

crimsonsailor7 said:rustywalker42, I'm not looking for a fight, but honestly, the insults and the lies are going way too far.

Lies and insults? What lies or insults did I even throw out there? Not that I expected anything else once I laid out the facts.

I got the exact same reaction from a government official once—she claimed I was "harassing" her. You know who ended up being right? Me.

crimsonsailor7 said:Classic textbook trolling. You know it too.

Maybe it’s just all inside the heads of you moderators over at LegalZoom. I gave that as a hypothetical scenario, but apparently, if anything requires actual knowledge, you guys just label it trolling. Is that how it works now?

Look, this isn't even the right thread for this. You could've just sent me a DM. And you know that, too—you’ve been hanging around LegalZoom long enough to know how things work here.

So, what you're saying is you WON'T let me respond to someone? You're just suffocating the whole debate because you can't handle someone disagreeing with you. Really?
Whatever. You won't be moderating here forever anyway, right? Honestly, I can't wait for you to finally pack it in. Maybe then this forum might actually see some life. Not that I need to list everyone who bailed on this sub because of you—or even more so because of that bot, Brian Edwards6.

Yeah, laws change. Nobody’s disputing that. But I don't see what dogmas or outdated regulations have to do with this. Regarding your last question—nobody was pushing some dogma on you. People were just pointing out why your question didn't make sense and how things actually work under current rules. It's not about dogma; it's about the regulations currently on the books.

Look, my question actually makes sense. They haven't backed up a single one of their arguments with actual law or any official regulation. Everything that user posted? Totally irrelevant to the specific case I'm talking about. What's the point?
So, they proved absolutely NOTHING.

That last discussion? Total waste of time. Pointless.
If we actually intended to shut you down, your first post would've been nuked already. Simple as that.

Why wasn't it sensible? Because it requires a bit more legal expertise, right? Is that just not your thing?

You can't throw accusations around and then act surprised when the moderators actually respond. What do you expect?

What's even the point in arguing with you people? I'd have better luck convincing a tree to stop growing.

Solid point. What’s even the point in trying to explain this to you year after year? You think all this trolling and back-and-forth is actually going anywhere? It isn't.

The problem is you guys treat every single question that requires actual legal knowledge as trolling. It’s just easier to hand out a ban and shut down the conversation, isn't it? God forbid you actually put in some effort to look up an answer for a specific situation.
A textbook example of government incompetence right here. Probably both of them, too—I’m betting Brian Edwards6 is definitely one of them.

When did we even say that? There’s always room for improvement.😉

Do I really have to dig these messages out of mothballs?

Brian Edwards6 said:So you ask a question, get an answer, and then just mock both the response and the person giving it? Really? Your strike wasn't for your overall contribution to the thread—it was specifically for that one comment today.

They didn't even bother getting back to me. Let’s say you put me in that situation above? I’d sue you so fast. You’d be paying out emotional distress settlements for the rest of your life.
Oh, sure. Why don't you go ahead and back up those imaginary rights of yours with some actual law and regulations? Since you clearly just made them up on the spot in that other thread. Go on then. ☕

Stick to the topic on every subforum. It’s not that hard. If you’re posting in a thread about "Police Conduct," then actually talk about how officers handle things—offer some criticism or share an opinion. Don't just show up to troll. You asked what I would change about a specific situation, and we both know you already have your answer.

What kind of absolute joke is this?! Are you actually out of your mind? You’re acting like some kind of authoritarian cop instead of an actual officer. First you start shooting, then you start playing interrogator with all that totalitarian bullshit. Seriously?
The fact is, you’re just getting defensive because you don't actually have an answer. What, you're gonna solve this with aggression? Really? 👍

Look, if I use this dictionary, any answer I give about how long some "dogma" lasts will be strictly tied to that specific "dogma." When the dogma shifts? The answers shift too. Simple as that. Because that’s just how these subforums work, the NBA debates around here always end up being a total mess.

Exactly. Let’s just lay all the cards on the table. Why wait? We need to know exactly who we’re dealing with and just how much they actually know.
Look, like I said before, the Law subforum is basically a mirror reflecting the entire American judicial system and how we train lawyers. It’s a joke. Nobody actually uses their brain. Instead, students just spend all their time memorizing massive textbooks hundreds of pages long. But then what happens? You take those same students—the ones who aced the exam with flying colors—and throw a real-world scenario at them? They completely fall apart. Total meltdown.👍

If someone’s looking for actual info, they’ll usually find it. Following some "my big brain believes" nonsense on a forum is just a fast track to making a massive mistake in real life—one that could cost you dearly. If you don't understand how a legal procedure works, try ignoring a cop next time you get pulled over. See how that goes for you.

Lead someone down the wrong path? Serious consequences? What exactly are we talking about here? 👍

Your suggestions are way too vague.

The suggestions are solid. First step? Get you and crimsonsailor7 kicked off the moderator list. 👍

Like crimsonsailor7 said, nothing’s perfect. There’s always room to improve. If you’ve got specific, actually useful suggestions? Bring 'em on. I'm all ears.👍

Look, here’s a real suggestion: just step down from the mod team. You and crimsonsailor7 both. 👍

P.S.: Since you're just sitting around waiting on a reply from admin, that's all I've got for now. If any actual, useful conclusions come out of this? I'm happy to help get them implemented.👍

No need. You wrote it yourself. 👍

Daniel Ward87 said:Like Brian Edwards6 said, your suggestions are way too vague to actually answer.

The suggestions are solid. How much do you actually know about moderating the Law subforum? Have you even looked at the posts from the old-timers—people like ZgSash, sasa80, or PowerLock? Not that I’m going to list them all.
These guys have basically checked out of this subforum. They're done. If you really need me to dig up their old posts and pull some quotes, just say the word. No big deal.

If we’re actually talking about changing policy, what kind of policy are you even proposing?

Free speech policy. Look, I didn't insult anyone in my post—read it again if you have to. Why on earth was it labeled as trolling? I explicitly stated I wasn't trolling; I’m actually interested in this. I want to look at this from a natural science perspective and see how actual legal precedents work. But apparently, on this subforum, any discussion that strays even an inch from the literal letter of the law is banned. You try to talk, and immediately it gets shut down and branded as trolling. What's the point?
Look, I’m not here to troll. I’m not some kid looking for attention, and I definitely don't have the energy to waste playing games on a forum. That was never the goal. And before anyone asks—no, I don't run clone accounts. You can easily check that yourself if you actually bother. So, why the sudden hostility? What's with the attitude?

Regarding that second suggestion? A "Mad House on Law" section isn't going to happen, and it's for the exact same reasons that specific PDF is locked over in Politics. Besides, what would we even talk about there? What topics?

I was exaggerating.

Let’s say a "Philosophy of Law" subforum opens up—just throwing out an example here. The whole point would be to allow debates on specific legal provisions or those weird gray areas where the law doesn't give a clear answer. To me, it's a fascinating area. I've tried to dive into stuff like that plenty of times, but the discussion always gets shut down.
There. Hopefully, that's more specific.

Today was the breaking point with this subforum. I’m not the only one putting up with this moderation, either—we’ve been dealing with it for years.

My next post was actually offered up as an example here:

For that, I got a red card and 35 points for "trolling."

The very last post on that thread, right after a message from the moderator crimsonsailor7, read:

"Am I allowed to reply to Brian Edwards6 and the others, or am I going to get a red card?"

It was deleted instantly.

People have been complaining about the Law subforum forever. I don't know if this thread will actually change anything, but I'm opening it anyway.

Let's define this subforum just like all the others.

Since the Law subforum has turned into a glorified service like LegalZoom, should we apply that logic to everything else?

For instance, should we restrict Natural Science to only strict scientific entries? No debates allowed, no questioning established dogmas. Only experts in natural science should post—meaning moderators would have to be exclusively scientists—and they’d hand out red cards to anyone attempting a constructive discussion?

How about Cars? Should we bring in traffic science experts and penalize any post that deviates from Dr. Marusic’s answers at AAA?

Are we turning this whole site into one giant SERVICE where robots give automated replies to users and suffocate EVERY bit of creative discussion?

Let's get serious and define the situation.

Law should be the last place where you stifle debate, because the law itself is constantly evolving. There are no permanent dogmas; things stay "set in stone" only as long as a specific law exists. Once that law is overturned, the dogma ENDS.
But apparently, that doesn't stop the moderators in this section from crushing any meaningful conversation that drifts away from their personal norms.

The Law subforum might seem like a joke to some, or just a vent for my frustrations, but it's actually a mirror of our society and our entire justice system.

So, I'm proposing a restructuring of the Law subforum. Here are my two suggestions:

1. A complete overhaul of moderation policy, including a change in leadership.
2. Creating a new sub-section within Law—something similar to the old Mad House section in Politics, but without the current moderators.

Those are my only two options; I don't see any others. I've been hitting the same wall on this subforum for ages, and nothing moves.

Why won't the admins step in? What's the issue? Why has this problem in the Law subforum been ignored for years?

Clearly, I'm not the only one fed up with this style of moderation. Threads about this subforum pop up year after year, yet nothing changes. If anything, it's gotten worse.

I'm calling on the admins, the moderators (except for the ones in Law), and the rest of the users to weigh in.

I have no intention of arguing with the Law moderators. It's pointless; as far as they're concerned, the subforum is running perfectly.

Also, there's a poll open.