Economy subforum is getting trashed

I’m going to file a formal appeal against this warning:

The moderator says: "In the future, this will be penalized..."
So, we have a new rule that—if logic actually applied here—should only count from the moment it was written.
Instead, I get hit with a strike for a post that happened *before* the rule even existed.

If the admin team decides this is okay, then by that same logic, they should start handing out retroactive strikes to everyone who used that specific phrase in the past.

But honestly, this is just a drop in the bucket.
Take the last official statement on that thread: claiming the impact of the mass exodus on the economy makes further discussion impossible because you aren't allowed to link the exodus to the economic collapse.

I could sit here until tomorrow listing examples.

First, we had Someied moderating, and he didn't hand out any strikes. There was plenty of stuff going on—way more off-topic chatter than actual discussion—but people were still talking! Then z_k took over, and he’s out here handing out strikes for things like that... I don't even know how to put it, but the guy just isn't consistent. He's clearly not cut out for the job. It's just arbitrary strikes left and right.

Please, find some middle ground between Someied and z_k and give the Economics sub-forum back to the users... the regulars are leaving in droves, and those who stay will eventually pool their money for a ban just to escape this arbitrary, "small-town cop" style of moderation.

Thanks.

Just to be crystal clear, we’re talking about this post

Look, this isn't our first chat regarding writing styles—I've pointed out several times already that your approach doesn't really fit the vibe of this subforum.

I'll give you some credit here—partially—on one point: I probably should have been more consistent about shutting down the off-topic chatter and the trolling, but if I had, you wouldn't be filing this complaint for another few weeks...

At the end of the day, I’ve been posting in the economics section for about 10 years now, and I can tell you firsthand that the quality of discussion and reasoning has actually been much higher in years past...

Can we get some clarity from the admins and supermods on whether retroactive bans are actually allowed?
The moderator made it pretty clear: they’ll be punishing this moving forward... but somehow I ended up as the sacrificial lamb for a post that went up before the new rules were even set. 🤷

30 points!!

Because if the admins think this is fine, there's really no point in arguing about how things are being moderated here...

wanderingdriver17 said:I’d appreciate it if the admins or supermods could weigh in—is retroactive punishing actually okay?
The moderator made it pretty clear: they'll be penalizing this moving forward... yet somehow I ended up as the sacrificial lamb for a post that went up before the "new" standard was set. 🤷

30 points!!

Because if the admins think this is fine, there’s really no point in arguing about moderation styles anymore.

You might have the concept of "retroactive" a little twisted here—I issued the warning on post #400, then followed up with the heads-up about future behavior in post #401.

There isn't some "new" standard; these subforum rules have been pinned for about 11 years now.

Besides, you've already picked up a few (mild) warnings for similar posts—each one accompanied by a PM explaining things and suggesting a change in style.

I think you both have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "retrograde" actually means. 😁

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_retrograde_motion 🧐

Gerald Chavez7 said:Maybe you're misunderstanding the whole "retroactive" thing—first I gave you a warning for post #400, then I wrote a heads-up for everyone else in post #401.

There’s no new standard here. The subforum rules have been stuck at the top for about 11 years now.

Besides, you've already picked up a few (mild) warnings for similar posts, always accompanied by a PM explaining things and suggesting you tweak your style.

Let's try this again.

If your warning had been post 400 and mine was post 401, there wouldn't be an issue.
I'll paste your own post again, just read it:

Moving forward, calling America a "corrupt mess" or whatever similar nonsense in the main threads of the "Economy" section (excluding the chat thread) will result in a warning.

So, terms like "corrupt mess," "the system," etc., have been used all over this same thread.
It's a fact.
No one else has ever been sanctioned for them, not even with a yellow card.
Fact.
You set a new rule stating that MOVING FORWARD people would be penalized.
But you handed me a warning before you even announced that such language wouldn't be tolerated anymore.

My arguments are clear and pretty much impossible to dispute.

Speaking of your "new rule":

Here we see a moderator listing their location as: Washington, D.C., swamp of corruption. Will they get banned from the Economy section because that kind of language isn't appropriate there?

Furthermore:

An active user on the Economy board has their location set as: in the corrupt trash heap of a country.

I could list plenty of examples.

Your logic doesn't hold up. You're being inconsistent and biased. You make up rules on the fly, hand out penalties that don't match the rules, block discussions, and drive users away.

I'm asking the administration to weigh in.

Harold Sanders10 said:I think both of you are getting the definition of "retrograde" wrong. 😁

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_motion 🧐

Actually.

The word I was looking for is retroactive.

Retroactivity, acting backward; the retrospective power of an act or measure. In law, applying a law to cases that occurred before it was enacted. In legal theory, laws—just like other acts and legal transactions—can typically only be applied pro futuro... Going forward, we should stick to the rule that legal norms don't work retroactively. If the legislature actually wants a law to apply backward, they need to state that explicitly...

Nicole Collins13, you're spot on.
I was wrong... you laid it out so clearly, with actual facts and logic, that I don't even have a leg to stand on.

Hang in there, Gerald Chavez7 🍿

I have no idea who's being inconsistent here. 🤣 🤣

Wait, you're telling me it's actually banned to call America an "employment racket" on this entire subforum? For real? 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

wanderingdriver17 said:Nicole Collins13, you're right.
I was wrong... you laid out the facts clearly, logically, and empirically, and I don't have a single decent argument to push back with.

You seeing this, Gerald Chavez7? 🍿

Does that mean I'm finally on the same page? 😒

Rachel Brooks63 said:Wait, you're telling me it's actually banned to call America a "corrupt mess" on this entire subforum? For real?... 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

That was just the last straw...
Got a strike on my last post just because I used the word f***... I have to censor myself, you know? Give me a break...

Gerald Chavez7 said:

wanderingdriver17 said:

Gerald Chavez7 said:Hey wanderingdriver17,

You just picked up an infraction on the forum...

Reason: breaking the rules...
-------
If I hadn't posted my warning about what to stay away from just fifteen minutes before you... then things might have been different... 🤦
-------

You just picked up a 10-point infraction. This might mean your access gets limited for a bit while the penalty runs its course. Just a heads-up though... the serious stuff? That stays on your record forever.

Original Post:
I can't believe I actually had to sit through that meeting today... just total chaos from the start. It felt like everyone in the room was working overtime to make sure absolutely nothing got decided. The Department seems completely out of touch lately. They’re throwing around numbers that don't even make sense if you look at them for more than five seconds. It’s like they’re playing a different game entirely. Honestly, it makes you wonder who's actually running the show behind the scenes at the Prime Minister's Office. Anyway, I saw wanderingdriver17 mention something similar on another thread earlier. Probably just me being cynical, but the whole vibe is off. Just feels like we're spinning our wheels while the rest of the country moves forward... anyway, back to work.

Let's go, America... but man, oh man...
Soccer. Pure euphoria. Just total pride and glory...

The perfect time for a little Clancic...

I was just reading this report about how the Department is tightening the screws on the budget again. It’s the same old story... everyone's looking for someone to blame while the numbers just don't add up. Honestly, it feels like we've been through this loop a dozen times before. You see the headlines, you hear the political posturing from the Prime Minister's Office, and you realize nothing actually changes for the average person on the street. Just more red tape and more excuses... anyway, just my two cents.

Opaca... 🎉

So, the reporter says this... How does the whole idea of intergenerational solidarity just morph into blatant intergenerational discrimination? It makes zero sense... Right now, as a taxpayer, I’m footing the bill for a 27% surcharge to support retirees, yet when our turn rolls around, that same benefit will be stripped away from us. Just feels like a raw deal...

Is all that massive cash being handed out as some "27% bonus" ever going to trickle down to anyone born after 1962? That’s the only way this actually makes sense... but the Department isn't interested in fairness. Instead, they're acting all high and mighty, demanding our entire retirement fund just to give us a fair shake.

Do we have grounds for a constitutional lawsuit if that "27%" we're paying out to current retirees never gets handed back to us? Absolutely...

I mean, what was even the point of these retirement funds if we don't get that "27% kicker" from the second tier without strings attached? First, politicians push us to save through these funds, which—thanks to federal regulations—let the government borrow 75% of our savings in all sorts of ways. And now, we, the very savers who funded this hungry government, are expected to hand our retirement savings right back to them just to get that "27% bonus"... you know, the one all the Social Security recipients already get, which, funny enough, we’re the ones paying for anyway. ?

It looks like the long-term goal of the reform is just finding new ways to fund the government and old-school retirees, rather than actually boosting our future checks. Pretty unfair...

If these funds are just going to keep funneling our cash to the state, and then we have to give that money back to the government just to be treated the same as the older retirees, why aren't the fund managers just government officials? Why pretend we have private retirement savings managed by private firms when it's all just a loop?

With the exodus of the workforce, we really need some serious reform...
But god forbid the system is actually at risk... according to the Department 👍 ...this will just make it more robust and resilient. 🤣

It's not like the DP is going to be helped by snatching money from the second tier once bonds become worthless.
There's a nice little graphic in the article showing the "solidarity bubble" versus the DP bubble. While Exodus has basically secured full employment, the number of people drawing benefits keeps climbing even without these new privileged groups... eventually, they'll have to start raiding the DP's piggy bank.
Meanwhile, employers are begging for tax cuts to offset the exodus, even though the "state" is already struggling to fund pensions through payroll taxes.

Man, forget these pensions , let's just go outrun Denmark!!!

Yeah, sure... whatever...

Exodus is the only true reformer!
Exodus will lead to clearing out the cronies and collapsing the nepotism!
It'll force the bureaucrats into reforms!

But first, total collapse!
...which has already started.

All the best,
US Forum

Please underline the controversial part that deserves a ban for breaking the rules.

I don't have to. For real...

Dammit.

Honestly, it’s just plain stupid how people constantly resort to insults and calling everyone corrupt bureaucrats or lowlifes in the economics subforum—all without actually making a single coherent point. I already pointed out in my own post that we have a dedicated chat thread for that kind of nonsense, which works fine. Does this site really need another carbon copy of a "politics" forum or something "near-political"?

All this whining about the subforum being ruined—well, if you actually bother to look at the original "real estate prices" thread, or check the posts from back when Lehman Brothers collapsed, or even the discussions during the debt crisis... you'll see actual substance. Just look at some of those "added value" posts, like the ones shadow used to write.

I’ll say it again: please just read the subforum rules. They’ve been pinned since 2007 for a reason.

Gerald Chavez7 said:Honestly, it drives me nuts how people just spend all their time on the economics subforum hurling insults, calling everyone corrupt hacks or losers... And they rarely even manage to write a coherent thought. Besides, I already mentioned we have the chat thread where things stay civil. Does this site really need a second version of the "politics" or "near-politics" section?

Complaining that this subforum is ruined—well, take a look at the original "real estate prices" thread, or check out the posts from back when Lehman Brothers collapsed, or those discussions about currency devaluation or the European debt crisis (like looking at the "added value" posts by shadow).

I’ll say it again: just read the subforum rules. They've been pinned since 2007.

I respect your take.

But I think you're being a bit too intense. You can tell there's still some of that old-school grit left in #member 😁 but there's definitely more "creative expression" going on now. 🕺

It's more fun this way... you get to dive deeper and broader into the topics... anyway, try arguing to me that politics and economics aren't two sides of the same coin. 🤷

Policajis.

People are leaving.

An exodus... 🤣

P. S. You probably want to give me a ban for the bolded part (and you should).

wanderingdriver17 said:I respect your opinion.

But I think you're taking this way too seriously. You can see there’s still that old-school sense of gravity here—#member 😁—but there's definitely more room for creative expression now. 🕺

It's just more fun that way; you get to dive deeper and broader into the topic... besides, try explaining to me how politics and economics are two completely unrelated things. 🤷

Policajis.

People are leaving.

An exodus. 🤣

P. S. You'd probably hand me a penalty card for the bolded part (and you already did).

You're being dramatic about being unfairly punished... That PM you pasted (didn't realize public posting of PMs from the Prime Minister's Office was allowed, but hey, I'm not a moderator for the PŽK), was simply an explanation of why you received a custom warning with minimal points—mostly because you dropped that post literally 45 minutes after my warning. posts 937 and 938.

You claim people are leaving—and sure, I agree—but that's because I've been too lenient and allowed too much trolling and off-topic chatter. Honestly, just scroll down through this subforum and look at the threads started even before I became a moderator; you'll see plenty of users complaining about massive amounts of trolling, off-topic nonsense, and insults. Some of those users eventually left, but I doubt it was due to my "police state" style of moderating...

Am I really that weird for wanting to ensure that not even a single section (and I emphasize *single* section!!!—the economics subforum) uses expressions like—and I'm not quoting your posts specifically:

"Screw the money, screw savings, just go broke," or "Those 5-10% raises some users brag about are nothing but absolute garbage," which led to the warning mentioned in the PM above.

As for the "corrupt mess" and "cronyism"—you were the one reporting people constantly when they generalized and used slurs against those who moved abroad. Why do you think I haven't received a mountain of reports for your own posts regarding generalizations? If I'm going to issue cards when someone calls immigrants "runaways" or something similar, then I'll have to do the same for your "corrupt mess" and "cronyism" comments.

And again link to the subforum rules, since we also introduced a chat thread where you can practically write about anything (as long as there's no outright insults).

I’m actually on the same page as Gerald Chavez7 regarding the moderation here—when someone jumps into a thread just to throw around terms like "cronyism" or other insults, they aren't there for a real discussion, right? They're just trolling. And honestly, trolling should be penalized because it leads nowhere except toward heated arguments that just drag down the quality of the conversation—which ultimately drives away users who actually want to discuss economic issues at a higher level. You can certainly voice an opinion without resorting to those kinds of slurs; they aren't necessary to explain a stance on corruption or overstaffing within government agencies. If I were running things and saw someone calling the United Kingdom the "Great Government" or using similar derogatory labels, I’d pull them from the thread immediately. It serves no purpose other than stirring up unnecessary trouble.

Gerald Chavez7 said:Am I really that weird for wanting people to stop—just once, mind you!—using phrases like (and I mean your specific posts here):

"Screw money, screw savings, just blow it all on some junk." Or things like "Those 5-10% raises you guys are bragging about? That's basically nothing, za kurac." And then I'd have to drop a warning like the one I mentioned in my previous PM.

Apparently, barking is a trait found in more intelligent people, or so they say. 😉

https://www.sciencealert.com/swearin...say-scientists

Rachel Brooks63 said:Wait, so you're telling me it's actually against the rules to call America a "corrupt playground of cronyism" on this entire subforum? Are you serious? 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

I’m reading this, and I honestly can't believe my eyes.

Gerald Chavez7 As stated by:
It honestly baffles me how much vitriol is constantly being spewed on the economics subforum. It’s become this endless cycle of insults, accusations of corruption, and people calling everyone else a "corporate shill" or some other variation of an epithet, all without ever actually making a coherent point. I mean, I even pointed out in my own thread that we have a dedicated chat room specifically to avoid this kind of mess, yet here we are. At this rate, does this site really need another duplicate of the "politics" section? Because right now, the economic board is starting to look exactly like a political shouting match.

People are complaining here that this subforum has been ruined, but honestly, you should take a look back at the original "Real Estate Prices" thread. If you dig through the archives, you can find the old discussions from the days when Lehman Brothers collapsed, or those intense debates we had during the currency devaluation periods and the Eurozone debt crisis. Just look at some of those high-value posts—the ones like what shadow used to write. They actually offered something substantial.

I feel like I’m repeating myself here, but I really must insist that everyone takes a moment to actually read the subforum rules. They’ve been pinned at the top since 2007 for a reason.'s go

It strikes me as fundamentally absurd that a mere moderator can act as a self-appointed censor, deciding which specific words are deemed acceptable and which ones aren't. It’s a bit much, if you ask me.
I would expect to see this kind of thing on a forum moderated by Željko Markić, rather than right here.

Alexander Thompson said:Some people claim that barking is a trait reserved for the more intelligent among us. I’ve always found that kind of logic a bit tired, though I suppose there's a certain cynical charm to it if you're looking at the world through a lens of pure noise. 😉

I was reading an interesting piece on ScienceAlert today regarding how swearing might actually be a biological advantage, and it got me thinking about how we perceive language in our own culture. According to the researchers, profanity isn't just a lack of vocabulary; it can actually serve as a functional tool for pain management and emotional release. It’s a concept that many people dismiss as mere vulgarity, but there seems to be some legitimate science suggesting that letting out a well-timed curse word can physically increase our tolerance levels during stressful or painful situations. It reminds me of a time back when I was working a grueling shift at a logistics firm in Chicago. We were dealing with a massive equipment failure during a heatwave, and the tension in the warehouse was thick enough to cut with a knife. Most of us kept it professional, trying to maintain a veneer of composure, but you could see the physical toll it was taking on everyone. In those moments, a sharp, muttered expletive felt less like a lapse in manners and more like a necessary pressure valve to prevent a total meltdown. There is a certain cynicism in modern discourse that treats any deviation from "polite" speech as a sign of intellectual deficiency. However, if we look at the data, it appears we might be over-sanitizing our interactions at the expense of our own psychological resilience. It’s a bit of a paradox: by policing our language so strictly, we might actually be making ourselves more fragile. It’s worth considering whether our societal push for constant decorum is actually counterproductive to how the human brain is wired to handle stress.

And it isn’t just that they’re saying it—they're actually right, damn it.
To hell with censorship!🙂

Gerald Chavez7 said:Am I really that weird for wanting people to stop using certain phrases—just one part of the subforum, mind you, the economics section—like yours:

"Forget the money, forget savings, just blow it all." Or things like "Those 5-10% raises some guys here brag about are nothing more than a joke," followed by me issuing a warning like the one mentioned in my previous PM.

I don't think you're weird at all. 🙂

Honestly, though, it feels like people like us are becoming an endangered species. Maybe the future will surprise us, though. 😉

Honestly, this kind of censorship is just Za Kurac... I mean, we aren't living in some tiny, ultra-conservative Catholic boarding school in the Midwest or anything...

I’ve gotta say, this "freedom of speech" we’re all so damn proud of? It’s nothing but a complete joke.

Full support for the moderator here.

People who feel the need to post absolute garbage on this forum shouldn't be allowed to express themselves here—especially when they wouldn't have the guts to say any of this crap in their own neighborhoods. 🤷

Freedom of Information Act all the way! It's our only hope.