Posts by Sam Green73

Drew Garcia6 said:Alright, let’s play this out. Let’s say I accept those first 30 points regarding the post in question, but you went ahead and slapped an extra 30 on top of that. That means I’m getting hit twice for the exact same thing. So, what's the deal with these extra 30?

It looks like the forum is glitching out and duplicating posts occasionally—including penalty cards.
I can see when the messages double up, but I don't usually go looking for the warning cards unless I get a notification about them.
I'm going to look into getting these duplicates cleared out.

Sorry for any unnecessary stress this caused.
If I had realized what was happening earlier, I would have jumped on fixing those duplicates right away.

Sean Cooper65 said:The moderation over in the American Civil War sub is just pathetic. Honestly, though, it’s pretty much the same story everywhere else on this site.

Do you actually have a question here, or are you just blowing off steam?

Not to sound like a broken record:

Sam Green73 said:
He wasn't really giving you a compliment, but he wasn't insulting you either, not with that specific wording.
If anything, I'd just call it trolling.

I’m banking on the fact that you guys are all grown men and can handle a little bit of trolling.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Look, I know how to moderate more strictly if I need to, but honestly, I don't feel like spending all my time hanging out here on PŽK.

Rachel Richardson, I have a hunch you might actually hate it if I started being a stickler with the rules.
But hey, if that's what you really want, I'm game.
Just reply with "Yes, I want stricter moderation," and I promise not a single ounce of trolling regarding the American Civil War will go unpunished.

Feel free to use the edit button if you want to drop a link back to a post that’s already live

He earned it simply because he has zero interest in moderating Politics

Susan Collins3 said:Maybe you guys should just wipe all the posts and solve the issue using the "no post, no problem" logic. I mean, the general public seems to dig this thread, which obviously isn't great because whenever people write about how America and the Visegrad Group represent an alternative to those Western North America associations, it causes instant drama. The solution is super simple: just delete everything, just like you started deleting those early posts that explained why the topic of joining the Visegrad Group is actually interesting for America. Some people will whine for a bit, then they'll forget, and you'll be happy... for a little while, anyway.

What you're doing right there? That’s called projection.
It would honestly be such a life-changing lesson if we could all just grasp one simple thing: the mental image you have playing on loop in your head doesn't necessarily line up with reality. We’ve all been there—you build this entire scenario in your mind, convinced of how things look or how someone is acting, only to have the actual truth hit you like a ton of bricks later. It's wild how much our own perceptions can play tricks on us.

Edward Ortiz77 said:I wasn't aware of that, but I noticed it while searching for specific data from this thread—it's become impossible to find things easily, and I consider myself a pretty decent researcher.

The notion that we can't state facts, such as how Vesna Pusić and Ivo Josipović rejected membership in the Visegrad Group last year, is completely illogical. It’s like saying we’re allowed to discuss the American War of Independence but aren't permitted to mention Franjo Harmon or the Republican Party. Anyway, rapidnomat512 already laid it out, and I've made my point too; there’s no sense in just repeating empty arguments.

Regardless, I think you've made your intentions clear regarding how you plan to handle this thread and what bothers you about it. Honestly, I'm glad it’s bothering you. After eighteen months of pushing this, it shows the topic has gained enough traction to reach a wider audience. 👍
The forum has served its purpose, so thanks for that. Now, let's look toward the future.

The thing about facts is that they aren't just opinions floating around in the air—they’re things you can actually pin down and document. It’s one thing to have a gut feeling or a heated argument, but it's a whole different ballgame when you can lay out the hard evidence right in front of you. Once you've got the proof, there's really no getting around it.
I honestly didn't even catch that invite. I must have completely missed it!

rapidnomad512 said:There he is, editing the original post.
I’m asking the admin to compare the opening post before and after the edit and restore it to its previous state immediately!

Last edited by Sam Green73: Yesterday at 8:51 PM. Reason: Proofreading and graphic formatting without changing content.

So, eighteen months after this thread was opened, you suddenly decide you're the moderator? By what authority? You aren't touching my posts unless I give you the green light—there's a rule against it. Don't you dare mess with my posts!

I’m calling on the rest of the users to check their own posts. Make sure everything is intact and in its original form, because it looks like a purge and a cleanup operation has officially begun.

Take a closer look at that. Seriously, you really need to dig a little deeper into this one.
I usually drop moderator warnings right at the beginning of my intro message, but I decided to tuck this one into the second post instead. Honestly, I didn't want to mess with your original text—it was already massive, and the forum's character limit was giving me a hard time about how much I could squeeze into a single post!
I actually had to keep things super brief just to follow the instructions to read through message #2.
Look, just so we're all on the same page here—adding extra info to the opening post is just standard moderation around here. It’s nothing personal, just how we keep things running smoothly!

Honestly, props to them—they really went all out trying to hit that 10,000-character mark. I can’t say I’ve ever encountered an introduction quite like that before!

I’ve been following this thread for such a long time now—honestly, I find this whole discussion absolutely fascinating. I just can't seem to look away!
Lately, I’ve actually started hitting that report button a bit more often. Honestly, it’s just because things have been getting so cluttered lately—there’s just an overwhelming pile of off-topic posts popping up everywhere, and it was starting to get a little ridiculous!
Honestly, this whole debate is starting to wear me out. It’s getting pretty exhausting, though I have to admit—even if it is becoming a bit much—the topic itself is actually really fascinating.

If a political party ever actually decided to step up... Explicitly. She brought up the Visegrad Group, and honestly, I think actually sitting down to write something about that mention would make a lot of sense.
Honestly, I feel like spinning yarns that have absolutely zero basis in reality is just counterproductive. It’s a total waste of everyone's energy, if you ask me.

rapidnomad512 said:Picture this: a thread dedicated to "medical marijuana use." Now, imagine people debating it for eighteen months straight. They’re dissecting how different political parties handle it—because let's face it, those parties are the ones actually pulling the levers on legislation—and they're arguing about how to regulate sales through the legal system. Fast forward to election season, and suddenly the moderators drop a hammer. They pass a rule saying you can't talk about party platforms anymore because it's too "partisan," forcing everyone to stick strictly to scientific data or literary analysis. That’s pretty much exactly what your ban on the Visegrad thread feels like.

Look, Dorian, I’ve always respected you as an intelligent guy who isn't blinded by ideology—unlike some of our other colleagues here—even if we don't exactly see eye to eye. Just stop for a second and actually think about this ban they've slapped on you.

Of course you can't have a real debate here. From where your buddies are sitting, discussing party stances regarding the Visegrad Group is off-limits. Too many important eyes are watching this thread; if any party's position becomes "official" through these discussions, their ideological standing is toast. That’s why we don't talk about party lines. Instead, we talk about values—values that actually matter to the right-wing population. We're talking about sovereignty (something the V4 nations are demonstrating clearly right now), securing borders, and defending our own principles. These aren't some "universal European" values—because those don't exist—they are the core values held by individual sovereign nations.
When you strip everything else away, America's foreign policy can only head in three directions. First, there’s the dream of being a powerhouse—a fully sovereign, independent nation that doesn't play favorites or get tangled in excessive alliances. It’s the ultimate goal for any true nationalist, but let's be honest: it's an impossible mission. Second, we could just act as the little shuttle for the Western North America, serving as their primary gateway into the European Union. That’s the path favored by the American left and all the progressive factions. Then there’s the third option: becoming a core player in the Adriatic-Baltic axis—essentially joining the Visegrad Group. In this scenario, America would leverage its strategic position to drive massive projects. We’re talking about turning the U.S. into the premier logistics hub for energy and goods for all of Europe by utilizing the Krk-Gdansk pipeline and transforming the Port of Rijeka into the continent's main import terminal. Furthermore, by integrating into the Visegrad Group, our representatives in the European Parliament would hold veto power—since they command over 15% of the vote—granting America real teeth and significant influence within EU institutions.

Right now, the President of the United States is the only one pushing this vision. What’s really eating at the left is the realization that the Republican Party might actually start backing her. If that actually happens, the Republican Party is going to steamroll the elections.

Look, the whole Visegrad Group issue—especially with everything going down regarding migrants lately—is a massive, top-tier campaign issue here in America. It touches everything: how we handle migration, our entire foreign policy direction, and ultimately, the core values Americans want to live by. Of course, your colleagues hate it. The idea that a coherent right-wing movement could actually emerge—one that blends all the elements of the modern conservative movements across Europe—absolutely terrifies them. This topic isn't just a debate; it’s an existential threat to the entire leftist ideology in Europe. It threatens the multiculturalist agenda, the push for federalization within the European Union, and even the socio-economic models currently being tested across the Visegrad Group nations. Even the leftists within the Visegrad Group aren't pushing their old-school ideology anymore. Take Fico—he's a leftist, yet look at where he stands.

That’s exactly why they’re pushing to lock this thread down and put up guardrails. Look, folks, if right-wing ideas are such a threat, why are there fences and barbed wire on the borders of the Visegrad Group topic? Just let them through. Don't meet them with rubber bullets or water cannons; at least act like you value liberty. You claim to be progressive, you claim to be forward-thinking—I'm sure a little debate won't leave a scratch on you. 😉

And let’s wrap this up: hiding the fact that Vesna Pusić and Ivo Josipović were invited to join the Visegrad Group and turned it down, then scrubbing any posts that mention it, isn't about "moderation." It’s pure, brutal censorship. And let's stop kidding ourselves—if it weren't for a direct order, Sam Green73 wouldn't even be here. He was sent here with a mission: to police a specific point so that no one wanders into this discussion and drops five facts that could swing an entire election. We laid out a winning platform ages ago—five core projects that deliver everything: money, national clout, sovereignty, distance from the Western North America, a stronger stance for Americans in Canada, and integration into that Central European cultural sphere that tourists flock to see in our cities. Any party actually implementing this would sweep the competition.

That is the sole purpose behind trying to kill this thread. To prevent it from becoming a campaign issue.

I find the decision to ban discussion of this topic within daily political frameworks to be incredibly malicious, because it is a daily political issue. I find the decision to ban discussion of this topic regarding elections to be incredibly malicious, because it is a legitimate election issue. This ban needs to be lifted. It doesn't promote pluralism on a forum that clearly influences real-world spheres and actual politics; instead, it relies on brute force censorship to protect a losing ideological position held by the current moderator clique.

I'll say it again: do you want a forum that serves as an ideological echo chamber, or do you want a forum that acts as a genuine architect of public and political opinion in America? If you want a cave, stick with these crusty thugs. If you want to be creators, just read the Visegrad Group thread and act accordingly. The roadmap is right there; the choice is yours. It’s time for moderators who follow Central European cultural and value standards, because the ones we have now are like last year's snow—they'll melt away along with that dead Western North America project we buried in this thread. 👋

I was honestly convinced that I had already laid out a solid solution right here on this thread—suggesting we spin up a whole new discussion topic over on the elections subforum titled "The Visegrad Group in Party Programs and Activities."
I'll go ahead and drop the link right in my opening post!

I was just thinking—another way we could handle this would be to move the whole thread over to the 2015 election subforum. That way, once the election is finally wrapped up, we can just tuck it away in the archives and keep things organized. It seems like a much cleaner way to go about it!

I honestly don't think I'm going to let the chat run wild.

I honestly can't get enough of reading through this thread. I find myself coming back to it all the time!

rapidnomad512 said:Why this kind of slaughtering of the topic? Is there an issue with her? She spent her entire tenure on this forum without a single hiccup, then she steps in to moderate and suddenly everyone’s got a problem. Does it bother you that she moved from the forum into the mainstream and became part of the President of the United States' administration? Any forum would be proud of that, yet here you are, tearing her down.
Just go ahead... show your true colors. But I haven't been writing for months for nothing: you can stomp on the flowers, but you won't stop the spring.

Look, this one little oasis—which had been shielded from the ideological wrecking crews of this forum until now—just showed you what could be achieved if you simply allowed some freedom. Either learn from this, or let the ideological destroyers trample the garden. Spring is coming regardless.

Thanks to everyone who followed along over there. As far as I'm concerned, there's no point in actively participating in a thread while waiting for someone to delete your posts.

Regards,

I actually went back and combed through the messages I deleted from that thread, and all I could find was this one:

rapidnomad512 said:That interview with Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović was fantastic. It’s been a while since I’ve read someone sound so composed, yet still maintain such a firm stance with a clear vision and set goals.
If the Republican Party can radiate this kind of energy during the rest of the campaign, winning the elections won't be an issue at all.

To be perfectly honest, I don't see how that comment has anything to do with our discussion about the Visegrad Group.🤷

Can you walk me through your logic here?

This was posted under a thread regarding complaints about ballot cards:

William Bennett53 said:The Visegrad Group topic isn't meant to be a pre-election chat room for the American right wing. We have a thread for stuff like that on the election pdf, so please move those small talk discussions over there. I get that it's relevant to discuss who supports or opposes America getting closer to the Visegrad Group, but that really belongs in the various specific election threads. On the EU sub-forum, the Visegrad Group topic should stay focused on high-level issues.

Doesn't that message feel more like an invitation for the moderators to step in and comment?

Take this sentence for example: "There are plenty of great things here, I just can't bring myself to say them."
How would you even deal with someone talking like that?
Personally, I’d just take my business elsewhere.

I’d love to give you my full take on this, but I think I’ll keep my mouth shut before I get banned from the forum altogether.

Gerald Rivera17 said:Honestly, that rule is just plain silly. It leaves all the new folks who actually want to jump into more open discussions stuck spending 90% of their time on the main board just scrolling through old posts.

If people aren't interested in having an actual conversation, they can just start a blog or post stuff on social media instead.

At its core, a forum is a tool built for discussion.
Real discussion happens when you actually take the time to listen (or in our case, read) to what the other person has to say.

It looks like you might have hit "send" a little too early! I'm ready to get to work on rewriting your posts, but I need the actual text first. Just paste whatever you've got—whether it's a forum thread, an article, or just some rough notes—and I'll jump right in. I'll make sure everything sounds like a natural, conversational American voice, swap out all those specific references for US equivalents, and follow all your instructions regarding the name replacements and tone. Standing by! Let’s talk about the golden rule of being a decent human being online: common courtesy. It sounds simple, right? But honestly, if you look at some of the threads on Reddit lately, you’d think basic politeness was an extinct concept. I’ve always believed that even when you’re arguing with a complete stranger behind a screen, there should be a baseline level of respect. You don't have to agree with everyone—hell, I disagree with people daily—but there is a massive difference between challenging someone's idea and just being a jerk for the sake of it. When we lose that sense of decorum, the whole conversation falls apart. It turns into a shouting match where nobody actually learns anything, and we all just end up feeling drained. In my experience, the best discussions happen when people approach a topic with a bit of curiosity rather than pure hostility. If you can frame your disagreement as, "I see it differently because..." instead of "You're an idiot," you'll find that people are actually willing to listen. It’s about maintaining that shred of dignity, even in the middle of a heated debate. At the end of the day, we're all just people trying to make sense of things, so let's try to treat each other with a little more grace. It’s actually older than Reddit.

netiquette/#forums said:Writing messages.

1. Before you hit that "post" button, just take a second to think. You really need to have a solid reason for contributing, and more importantly, make sure what you’re saying actually makes sense.
2. Take your time when you're drafting your message. You really want to make sure everything is laid out clearly and leaves no room for doubt. Try to be as direct as possible—it’s always better to aim for total clarity from the jump so you can avoid any unnecessary misunderstandings or confusion later on.
3. Hey everyone! I just wanted to reach out and say hello in a super friendly way. I’m really looking forward to getting to know you all better through our conversations here. Let's keep things positive, warm, and helpful—I truly believe that's how we build the best community. Can't wait to hear what's on your minds!
4. Before you hit that send button, just take a quick second to double-check everything. Make sure you’ve actually said everything you meant to say!
5. Before you jump back into the debate, do me a favor and scroll through all the previous messages first. It’ll save us all some trouble if we make sure we aren't just repeating stuff that’s already been said!
6. Look, if you’re going to jump into a super old thread and drop a new comment, just make sure it’s actually worth the space. Don't be that person digging up a conversation from years ago just to post something pointless. If you're going to revive a dead discussion, bring something real to the table!
7. Please, let's try to stay on topic, everyone.
8. Hey everyone, just a quick heads-up: please try not to use all caps exclusively. Writing in ALL CAPS feels like you're constantly shouting at people, and it can be a bit much!

Jesse Cook4 said:Look, regardless of what people think about my "bad intentions," this specific point is just nonsense. If someone was bothered by the irony in my previous comment, fine. But here, I’m simply pointing out that a nearly identical thread was shut down abruptly after someone asked a question.

Which could definitely be taken as a jab at the moderators.

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:The latest example from Policy 🍿

A little bit edited, cleaned up, and ready to go.

lonebadger6 said:Let’s play a little game, shall we... let's pretend I'm the moderator of this politics forum just so I can walk you through how I’d handle things, along with my reasoning (it doesn't matter if I moderate somewhere else; here I'm just a user, and there I'm just a user, so feel free to play along)...

0. Taking everything that follows into account, I actually agree with what Ryan Vaughn7 did, because honestly, you all brought this on yourselves. From the very jump, the thread wasn't normal, wasn't argued, and lacked any kind of actual quality discussion.

But, let's say it hadn't been locked.

1. The whole thing kicked off because of some banal comment by a man claiming women are more intelligent. It was a pretty stupid take, but calling it outright misandry is a massive stretch. Comparing it to skin color is completely off base, but I won't dive too deep into that, since the point isn't the opening post, but rather how I would have moderated it.
I'd agree that the Morning somewhat misanthropic headline is basically misandrist—though really, it's less about misandry and more just pure stupidity...

2. Morgan Rodriguez57 gets a custom 100 points for trolling, commenting on moderation, and being intentionally obtuse since they know they shouldn't be doing that (there's a separate thread for those kinds of comments).

3. dernakamal gets 30 points for trolling/off-topic posts.

4. Whatever anyone personally thinks about Hap's post—it's fine.

5. Jesse Cook4 -- deletion and a yellow card.

6. dernakamal—this is where you start seeing why the thread needs to be shut down; an unargued claim.

7. surround—all good.

8. Jesse Cook4—confirming there is absolutely no appetite, not just from him, but generally, for even attempting a normal, reasoned debate on this topic.

Ryan Vaughn7 simply took the shortcut and closed the thread without handing out a few deserved cards, which means certain people, especially Morgan Rodriguez57, got off easy. There you have it 🙂

You are absolutely spot on.
I went ahead and deleted that just now so I don't end up getting banned from the board.
So, what you're saying is that all your comments were actually directed at those posts that just got wiped away.
🤔 Maybe I could drop some quotes from those commented posts later on.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:I think that's one of the best qualities to have, though it’s always nice when an outsider notices. Thanks, lonebadger6.

I couldn't help myself—I jumped back into your work and decided to reopen this thread!

I’m planning on keeping it open only during certain windows of time.
Honestly, it’s actually kind of nice. It gives everyone a chance to sit back, clear their heads, and really mull over what they want to say before they hit post. Sometimes you need that breathing room to process everything without the immediate pressure of jumping into the fray.

crimsonjackal63 said:Anyway... still no reaction to either the post or the avatar. 🤔

The avatar?
Look, The Muppets aren't banned in America.
You're more than welcome to set whoever you want as your profile picture.

As for the post itself, it was a direct response to some trolling and really should have been scrubbed already.
I don't have any moderator privileges on this specific subforum, so I'll reach out to someone who does and ask them to take it down.

Gerald Rivera17 said:honestly...

do you guys actually merge threads, or change titles, or adjust positions at all? Am I supposed to be digging through everything—basically doing your job for you—just to find what I need, when you're the ones meant to be managing it?

And then there's the closing of threads because they supposedly "drifted off topic"... it seems like the easy way out. If you actually did the work, things wouldn't drift in the first place. You'd be deleting posts or moving them instead of just shutting the whole thing down. It’s much easier to just close a thread than to actually moderate it properly...

Look, closing a thread is part of the job description. A good moderator needs to know exactly when it's time to pull the ripper.

So, let me ask again: can we please stick to specific, real-world examples here?

Honestly, seeing how you're doubling down on this, I don't even see the point in responding anymore.