Bring Oak Tree back to the politics !!! front page!

Nah, you guys are basically just acting like a litmus test for who's wrong. You just drop a post, and if steeleagle70 disagrees, then that's the final word, I guess.
And don't even get me started on The Family. If Anderson actually gave him the odds and answered him, he’d probably frame it above his bed. He even specialized in monitoring the forum's Uptime just to grab attention, but whatever, it didn't work...

dustypuma5 said:Nah, you guys just act like some kind of biased testers. You drop a post, and if Adler109 is against it, then that's the end of the story, right?
And don't even get me started on The Family. If Anderson actually gave him the time of day or replied to him, he’d probably frame the response and hang it over his bed. He even made a whole thing out of monitoring the forum's Uptime just to get some attention, but hey, nothing ever comes of it...

Hmm, you talk a big game, but it's a shame reality isn't on your side. This forum has about as much connection to reality as Sanader had to integrity.

dustypuma5 said:No, you guys are just acting like some kind of faulty litmus test. You just write a post, and if Adler109 disagrees, then that's the end of the story.
And don't even get me started on The Family. If Anderson were to actually quote him and give him a real response, he’d probably frame it and hang it above his bed. He even went so far as to specialize in monitoring the forum's Uptime just to get some attention, but clearly, that didn't work out for him...

Once you finally learn how to communicate without trolling, maybe we won't have to put up with you forever.

OT:

Let me say it one more time: my take is that topics regarding non-governmental, quasi-right-wing parties (which apparently just got their registration confirmed yesterday) have absolutely no business being on the Politics front page. Furthermore, the admins and moderators haven't actually voiced any opposition yet (there you go trolling again). Besides, the moderator who moved the thread to the Politics section already gave you all an answer—Hitrec and the crew from Oakley can dance around in the Politics section all they want, which is exactly where they belong in the American political landscape (honestly, it's no wonder none of them are chiming in).

This is honestly just straight-up disrespectful. A total mess.

I really don't get how people can deliberately push an agenda just to block something simply because it doesn't align with their personal tastes or beliefs. It's shameful. If you have any integrity at all, you'll move this thread about the new political movement back to the Politics section; I honestly don't see what criteria it's failing to meet for being there.

Andrew Chase31 said:This is straight-up rude. A total mess.

I honestly don't get how people can go out of their way to push an agenda just because something doesn't fit their specific vibe or beliefs. It's embarrassing. If you have any dignity at all, you'll move this whole thread about the new political movement back to the Politics section. I don't see what criteria it's failing to meet here.

The criteria for landing on the main Politics page are relevance, importance, and—for a party or movement—actual support.

These guys have absolutely none of those. If they’re already trying to force their way through forums and the internet, they might as well quit politics right now. They aren't even going to pull a measly 4% in the polls.

Who even is Hrvoje Hitrec?

Seriously though, everyone seems to think they're some massive deal that needs to be respected. 😵

Your arguments don't really hold water.
If you aren't on board with this new movement's platform, or if you just can't stand their leadership, that's your call—but please, take it to the Oakley discussion thread. Moving a topic off the main Politics page just because a brand-new group rubs you the wrong way is pretty low. It’s especially ironic coming from people who claim to be champions of democracy and free speech—you know, the various quasi-liberals and social democrats out there. It’s almost funny; it feels like some of you don't even grasp what those words actually mean.

Look, even if this movement doesn't have massive public backing yet and might not even make it into Congress, there are plenty of folks here in the Politics section who like the concept at first glance. They want it to be taken seriously, reported on, and discussed. At the very least, out of respect for the large number of users active in Politics who support the idea behind founding Oakley—people who contribute to the conversation here (and directly help the site owner's bottom line)—I think it would be fair and decent to move this thread back to where it belongs.

Andrew Chase31 said:Your arguments don't hold water.
If you aren't feeling the platform of this movement, or if you just can't stand the lead guys, hey, that's your right. Just take it to the Oakley discussion thread and have a real debate there. But trying to yank a topic off the main Politics page just because some brand-new movement isn't your cup of tea? That's bottom-of-the-barrel behavior. Truly. And coming from people who claim to be champions of democracy and free speech—all these quasi-liberals, social democrats, and whatever else—it’s honestly hilarious. It’s like these folks don't even know what those words mean.

I mean, look, even if this movement doesn't have massive public backing yet and might not even make it into Congress, there are plenty of users active in the Politics section who dig the concept at first glance. They want it taken seriously, they want info, and they want to talk about it. At the very least, out of respect for the solid group of regulars in Politics who support the idea of starting Oakley and who actually keep this forum alive (and keep the owner in business), I think it would be fair and decent to move this thread back to where it belongs.

It's obvious that how many people are interested isn't the deciding factor here. If it were, stuff like old-school partisan bickering would still be on the main Politics page instead of tucked away on the sidelines.

This Oakley group or whatever is basically just a tiny fringe party right now. There’s zero reason for them to get any special treatment, none at all.

Five users with three burner accounts can manufacture interest whenever they feel like it. That's why interest shouldn't be the main metric, otherwise we'd just be turning every discussion into total nonsense. Let the nonsense stay on the sidelines. If it ever turns into something actually relevant, then sure, move it.

Right now, there is absolutely no reason to keep these marginal players on the front page.

steeleagle70 said:There’s basically zero reason to keep those nobodies on the front page right now.

Actually, there is.
This forum isn't some official meeting where spots are handed out based on an election mandate; it's just a place where we talk about whatever the users actually want to talk about.

If a topic catches people's interest and doesn't break the rules, I don't see why it shouldn't be right where the users want it. 🤷

Anyway, the best way to judge if a topic matters is just looking at the view counts—if nobody's posting, the thread dies and becomes irrelevant.

Whether you decide someone is persona non grata or someone else decides that, it's really just a matter of personal opinion.

But look, I'm just asking that the wishes of all the conservative-leaning users be respected so we can discuss our own side too, especially since you liberals have two massive parties and a bunch of smaller ones, while we don't even have one big party to call our own.

@steeleagle70/">@@steeleagle70

I hate to say it, but you’re talking nonsense (if you’ll excuse my bluntness). And I’ll tell you exactly why... because the whole thread about Lesar and the Laborers is sitting right there on the front page of the Politics section. ☕ Does that mean they have massive public support? ☕

The movement was just founded yesterday, so we don't really know yet if they're just a fringe group or if people will actually rally behind them. If this movement is new to the American political scene and it's sparking actual interest, then it’s totally out of line to delete it immediately. If people aren't interested in talking about it, then it can be removed—simple as that...

Spot on. It took Lesar about six months from when he announced his party before he actually got any traction, and honestly, he’s way more recognizable than these guys since he’s sitting right there in Congress.

So, what, you think ten random people and some clones want to pull the same stunt they did during the last presidential election? Not happening.

Look, I'm fine with letting Lesar take center stage, just like before. But let's be real—you don't just drop everything on day one after forming a party and expect everyone to care. They basically spent their first few weeks trying to shout into the void of the internet because, let's face it, nobody else was paying them any attention anyway.

dustypuma5 said:There is.
A forum isn't some government agency where seats get handed out based on an official mandate, right? It’s just a place to talk about whatever the users actually care about.

If a topic catches people's eye and doesn't break any rules, why shouldn't it be right where the community wants it? 🤷

Honestly, the best judge of whether a topic matters is its view count. If nobody is posting, the thread dies and becomes irrelevant. Simple as that.

Deciding who is "persona non grata" while letting others slide is really just a matter of personal opinion, isn't it?

But look, I’m just asking that everyone on the conservative side gets a fair shake. We should be allowed to discuss our own options here too. You guys on the left have two massive parties and several smaller ones to lean on, while we don't have a single major party of our own.

You've got plenty of threads about the Republican Party already. They basically command the vast majority of conservative votes. If they weren't such a powerhouse, they wouldn't have held onto power for sixteen years, and all those other right-wing groups would be sitting in Congress instead of hanging out on streets and forums.

As long as the criteria for what qualifies as Politics remain this fluid and dependent on the subjective whims—or rather, the personal leanings—of moderators, friction and perceived unfairness are inevitable. In my view, the guidelines should be stripped down to the absolute basics: follow the title of the PDF thread to the letter!

Politics is defined as: commentary regarding current events or general observationson political actions, including legislation, executive decisions, official activities, and any news tied to the President, the Government, Congress, all political parties, elected officials, and even public figures (provided the discussion centers on their political involvement or commentary on state affairs)

Politics is not: anything with a tenuous or indirect connection to governance—much like the current discourse surrounding grocery prices here in the States—or topics that require a heavy stretch to be categorized as such. Currently, at least a third of the content in the Politics section falls into this gray area...
(I considered posting links to these questionable threads, but I gave up; there are simply too many, and I’d likely face pushback for even suggesting they belong in Politics! Some belong in the Politics section, while others don't even merit that much attention and should move to specialized threads...) "Pure politics" does not include even if the President, the Prime Minister, or a party leader acts outside their official capacity, regardless of how gripping the story might be...

Essentially: as long as the Politics section remains cluttered with threads about food inflation, tourism, Chris Cvic (RIP!), Latina, the HTV Business Club, prison conditions, Branka Primuzak (who even is that...?), News Corp, the Morning Post, the Keys, some striker from Canton, Mercer, or the defense of generals... I am well within my rights to askwhy an absolutely stellar political topic is being relegated to the "Politics section"!

The true weight of a political issue—or any subject for that matter—is determined by the community itself through engagement or indifference. Marginalized topics will, driven by the users (not the moderators!), find themselves buried on page two by tomorrow morning.

One individual's personal assessment of a topic's "significance" or "scale"—and certainly not their personal political biases—should never dictate where a thread is placed. The sole criterion should, and must be, the subject matter (strictly: politics!) presented in the opening post.

@steeleagle70/">@@steeleagle70

Haha, I guess the front page should just be filled with the specific people and parties that you leftists—and the mods (except for maybe the one guy)—think actually matter, right?

Whatever, fine. But they should probably just update the rules for the Politics section to say it's okay to talk about leftist ideas and trash Sanader and the Republican Party, and call it a day.

redhawk76 said:As long as the rules for what counts as Politics stay this flexible—basically just depending on whether a moderator likes you or not—there’s gonna be drama and unfairness. If you ask me, the rules should be super simple: just stick strictly to the PDF title!

Politics is: generally talking about current political moves, decisions, actions, events, or news involving the President, the Government, Congress, any and all parties, politicians, representatives, or even public figures if their involvement touches on political matters...
Politics isn't: stuff that has a loose, indirect (or zero) connection to politics—like this whole thing about prices here in America! Right now, about a quarter of the content in the Politics section is just things being forced into the category. (I tried to drop links to some of these "sketchy" topics, but I gave up—there are way too many, and people would probably complain about them being in Politics anyway!) "Politics" also isn't even when the President, Prime Minister, or a party leader does something private or outside their official role, no matter how juicy the gossip is...

So basically: until we stop seeing threads about food prices, tourism, Chris Cvic (RIP!), Latina, the HTV Business Club, prison conditions, Branka Primuzak (who even is that?), local news stations, the Morning news, islands, some striker from Canton, Mercer, or military defense... yeah, I'm done... until then, anyone has every right to ask why one specific "political" topic got tossed into the "Politics section"!

How "big" or "small" a topic is will be decided pretty fast by the users themselves based on whether they engage with it or ignore it. The fringe stuff will, if the users want it to, (not the mods!) end up on page 2 by tomorrow morning!

Someone's totally personal opinion on how "important" or "major" a topic is—especially their own political biases—shouldn't be the deciding factor for where a thread lives. The only real criterion should be the subject matter of the original post!

And just a heads up. A private forum follows whatever vibes the owner sets. If you don't like the rules, there's the door.

Way to go, redhawk76.

dustypuma5 said:So, if we’re being honest, the cover would basically just be a lineup of all the people and parties that you liberals—and the mods, too, unless you count PL—think actually matter. Like, anyone else wouldn't even make the cut, right?

Sure, why not? We could just write it out clearly in the rules: say that on the Politics section, everyone’s free to talk about left-wing ideas and give Sanader and the Republican Party all the grief they deserve. Simple as that, right?

So you’re really out here defending Sanader? Who's even backing you up? Honestly, when it comes to all this Left vs. Right stuff, I can't help but notice that the right-wing perspectives seem to be totally dominating, at least on the front page.

steeleagle70 said:You've got a thread about the Republican Party that's basically just a fairy tale. They pull in almost all the right-wing votes. If they didn't, they wouldn't have held power for 16 years straight, and all those other conservatives would be sitting in Congress instead of yelling on the streets or on forums.

Most people who actually want to talk about this stuff think the Republican Party is the leftmost party in America. 😳

Just let us talk, for god's sake. What's the big deal if you leave the topic alone, or do you hate us that much that you can't even look at us?

What's the point?

dustypuma5 said:Most people here who actually want to talk about this think the Republican Party is the leftmost party in America. 😳

Just let us debate, for crying out loud. What's the harm? Is it because you hate us so much you can't even stand to see us talking, or should we just move the thread elsewhere?

What's the point?

The Republican Party pulls in over 30% of the vote, and it's not from liberals—yet actual right-wing parties barely get enough votes to count on this forum. How does that work?

It’s pretty obvious, isn't it?

And hey, they're even arguing that we *should* be debating, so the topic isn't even closed.

The topic's back on the front page, so we can go ahead and lock this one down.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:The main topic is back on the front page, so we can go ahead and close this one down.

Thanks for understanding.