Posts by Sam Green73

feralranger said:...
That whole path is about as realistic as Dinamo winning the Champions League. I’ve told you this before; when you're just an honest individual working in Politics, you're essentially an underdog. You just don't have that massive machine backing you up to actually get things done.

At the end of the day, it isn't a matter of Law; it's purely a question of Politics.

feralranger said:But honestly, you don't usually see those kinds of deep dives happening there. For example, if you tried bringing up the technicalities of how compound interest works on pension fund settlements, that’s just not the kind of thing that would ever catch fire over in the Politics section...

So, are you avoiding the Politics subforum because you feel like those topics just won't grab the attention of the typical Forum member?

🙂 You should definitely start posting about those less "flashy" topics in the Politics section too.
Just be a trailblazer! Start some threads, and the right people will show up to chat.

feralranger said:The point is, it’s actually the lawyers who really understand the nitty-gritty of specific laws. When you're fighting against some stupid or crooked legislation, having a lawyer on your side can be a total game-changer. Honestly, I think a lawyer who actually cares about ethics is just as vital to society as a doctor.

Look, let me give you a little reality check here.
Read this carefully.
On the Politics sub-forum, even lawyers are allowed to post their thoughts.

Everything else you wrote is just pure political grandstanding.

feralranger said:

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
You haven't offered a single word in response.🤷

What do you mean, "nothing"? Why the sudden attempt to twist my words? I clearly stated that my expectation is simply for American police officers to be capable of using their own heads, much like the Spanish officers featured in that link.

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
As far as actual evidence goes, all those deleted comments remain perfectly visible to the administration; and considering they were nothing more than the same tired rhetoric repeated ad nauseam, I suspect everyone else here is already intimately acquainted with their content anyway.👍

You’re out here actively concealing evidence from the public eye—it's nothing short of shady. Meanwhile, the administration has full visibility into all of this, leaving them perfectly positioned to decide whether they actually want to continue supporting your little echo chamber (an environment in which you, quite personally and rather deviously, always seem to take the lead).

Maybe someone can share a more recent example? Like, say, something from Madrid the other day:

It looks like we’re already drifting into some deep philosophical waters here.

I thought I’d throw in a little cheat sheet to help us navigate:

morality ->philosophy
passing and amending laws ->politics
applying the law ->law
human behavior ->psychology

wiredangler5 said:Look, responding to a troll doesn't somehow absolve them of the responsibility for the trolling or the insults they threw out there. Just because you're reacting to someone being a jerk doesn't mean an inappropriate response suddenly gets a free pass, not even slightly.

I didn't issue a sanction for the initial trolling, so I haven't sanctioned this reply either.
If we’re going to hand out penalties here, the quoted text needs to be penalized too.

Usually, I just wipe away labels that don't actually name the person being addressed.
But honestly, I love the idea of treating all kinds of labeling as grounds for a warning card.

p.s. I'm really digging this shift toward moderator transparency with the community.

amberwalker4 said:If my goal had been to intentionally insult people—if I’d sat down and typed that post specifically to offend KRIN—I would have. But I didn't. And if I had, I certainly wouldn't be sitting here filing a complaint about it.

Insults happen; even I slip up sometimes.
I truly believe you didn't do it on purpose, but you still did it.

Daniel Ward87 said:Sam Green73, take a look at these posts and let me know if they should be banned or not.

I caught it. I was watching.
There’s a massive difference between how you handle a troll and how you deal with someone who just wants to spin endless "what if" scenarios and alternative history rabbit holes. They require two completely different mindsets.
I’m going to clear out the clutter.

amberwalker4 said:Like I said before, Sam Green73 was totally fine with this kind of back-and-forth. That’s exactly why I decided to jump in and match that energy.

What conversation are you even talking about?

hollowtrucker77 said:For instance, why wouldn't this Forum be the perfect starting point for an initiative to change some bad or just plain ridiculous law?
And why couldn't discussions here actually serve as the catalyst for changing something as simple as a traffic sign?

Look, changing laws falls squarely under the umbrella of Politics, not Law.

When we talk about Law, I think it makes much more sense to focus on how statutes are actually written and applied in practice.

bluecyclist64 said:And where exactly did Brian Edwards6 disappear to? Was it just following orders from on high?

I honestly wonder what it would take for you to move this thread over to the Politics section. It would allow us to actually discuss people without having to deal with this constant legalistic and police-style censorship. I suspect the moderators over there wouldn't have any issue letting a topic like this slide.

EDIT: I see that... 👍Thirteen has returned to the fold, but my proposal regarding the reallocation still stands.

We can always start a brand new discussion and just drop a link back to the original legal debate.
But honestly, looking at it now, I’d say this one belongs much closer to the Politics section.

At its core, though, we're dealing with a legal issue here.
If you feel like certain regulations really need to be overhauled, then by all means, go ahead and kick off a new thread in Politics.

p.s. The thread in the Legal section has been reopened.

Nicholas King said:Having moderators jump in and actually change what someone wrote is a massive big no-no on any decent forum.

Honestly, I think it’s just good etiquette to actually get a feel for the conversation before you chime in.
Don't just parachute into a thread without reading the room.

The ad was basically just one sentence long, so when they deleted that single line, they effectively wiped out the entire post.

redcrane22 said:I’ve spent so much time scrolling through the forums trying to find a specific topic related to true crime, but I just couldn't find anything quite right 😢
it’s kind of like being in a massive library where you know the book is there somewhere, but none of the labels make sense. Honestly, I hesitated to start a thread myself because I wasn't entirely sure which section would be the best fit for it

Just go ahead and post what you want to chat about right here! I'm sure someone kind will jump in and point you toward the right section.

Chloe Scott27 said:Honestly, I wouldn't even dream of downloading a partial file myself. That’s just the typical consensus you hear from the crowd at the town hall council. 🙂

Are you honestly suggesting that even in a democracy, my colleague would still walk away with a partial win?
That’s a really interesting question.

If you're looking for some deep dives into politics, check this out:

Amanda Hughes37 said:I hear you! I actually just got back from vacation yesterday☕... but quick question: when you see a red card next to a post, but the person hasn't been banned yet, how many points does that actually count for?

PŽK FAQ
The card itself shows the duration and how many points it carries; just so you know, yellow cards don't carry any points at all.

Daniel Gonzalez9 said:And can we talk about replying to someone who’s already banned? Is that allowed, or are they basically being protected by the rules?

Personally, I think quoting someone under a ban is totally fine.
However, I’d ask everyone to please avoid using direct dialogue in your posts. It feels a bit off to expect a response from someone who literally isn't able to reply anymore.

Alex Scott5 said:But we’ll just run into another headache if we start this thread—should it live under General History or the American Civil War section?

Honestly, I don't think that should be an issue at all.
The man was a major player both before and after the American Civil War.
It doesn't make much sense to put such narrow limits on the conversation; we could easily just host two separate discussions:
"Ronald Reagan as a historical figure" and "Ronald Reagan during the American Civil War"