Question for Cuke

After ninety-two pages were filled up on the pdf near politics section regarding Pauletić's boycott initiative, is the discussion being shut down there simply because she doesn't technically belong in that subforum?😕

Where else would it go? Which subforum is actually going to take it?

Sean Cook2 said:After ninety-two pages were filled up on the pdf near politics section regarding Pauletić's boycott initiative, is the discussion being shut down there simply because she doesn't technically belong in that subforum?😕

Where else would it go? Which subforum is actually going to take it?

Honestly, I have no clue where it belongs, but it certainly shouldn't be on Politics—we’re all a bit exhausted from that one. We cleared out the first topic for the usual reasons, and this second one was locked simply because the last few pages were just the same thing on repeat.

To be fair, I'm not even sure if there's anything left to say about this gentleman's life and work that hasn't been covered, but a headline framed around boycotting a major corporation's films isn't really what Politics is for.

Charles Fox10 said:Honestly, I have no clue where it belongs, but it certainly shouldn't be on Politics—we’re all a bit exhausted from that one. We cleared out the first topic for the usual reasons, and this second one was locked simply because the last few pages were just the same thing on repeat.

To be fair, I'm not even sure if there's anything left to say about this gentleman's life and work that hasn't been covered, but a headline framed around boycotting a major corporation's films isn't really what Politics is for.

First off, it wasn't on Politics; it was in Mad Corner, which is exactly where it belongs.
As for whether we're "burnt out" or not, I'll leave that up to those of us who still actually find this stuff interesting.

Or maybe you're just scared to talk about Mr. Pauletic and his little cult? Is that it?

Charles Fox10 said:Honestly, I have no clue where it belongs, but it certainly shouldn't be on Politics—we’re all a bit exhausted from that one. We cleared out the first topic for the usual reasons, and this second one was locked simply because the last few pages were just the same thing on repeat.

To be fair, I'm not even sure if there's anything left to say about this gentleman's life and work that hasn't been covered, but a headline framed around boycotting a major corporation's films isn't really what Politics is for.

So, the issue is just the tone of the headline?

I get it—no worries at all.

I just wanted to double-check.

Why’d you lock my thread about the Americans in Texas? You could've at least moved it over to the supplemental Politics PDF. Sure, options 3 and 4 might look a bit silly at first glance, but they really capture how fed up people are with our government. If it doesn't belong on the main Politics page, it definitely fits in the supplement since nobody else is talking about this here.

P.S. You might want to just scrap those last two poll options. Keep the first two and move the thread back to the PDF near politics.

Jonathan Reed4-no Mad Corner here for quite some time now

Sean Cook2's title isn't doing much for the topic or the discussion 🤷 perhaps there's a better way to frame this.

Henry Cox78, your thread was locked by a colleague with an explanation, and the moderators don't have the authority to move or edit polls.

Charles Fox10 said:Jonathan Reed4-no Mad Corner here for quite some time now

Sean Cook2's title isn't doing much for the topic or the discussion 🤷 perhaps there's a better way to frame this.

Henry Cox78, your thread was locked by a colleague with an explanation, and the moderators don't have the authority to move or edit polls.

If I'm following you correctly, we could just move the Pauletic discussion over to the PDF Near Politics section under a different heading?

The core idea is pretty clear in the opening post. It's about tracking Pauletic's boycott initiative—he mentioned his analysis of Continental's cartoons is finished and he'll be sending them to the right outlets. We can easily swap the title for something more appropriately toned.

Charles Fox10 said:Jonathan Reed4-no Mad Corner here for quite some time now

Sean Cook2's title isn't doing much for the topic or the discussion 🤷 perhaps there's a better way to frame this.

Henry Cox78, your thread was locked by a colleague with an explanation, and the moderators don't have the authority to move or edit polls.

Oh, really? :rolleyes:

So, the title is actually an issue after all. :lol:
Fine then, you guys come up with something. We'll just accept whatever you decide on.

By the way, that guy whose name we aren't allowed to mention announced he’s dropping the results of his grueling, weeks-long analysis of Continental's films tomorrow. This makes having a solid topic even more important so we can actually discuss it.
Or did that guy's legal team threaten a new lawsuit if anyone dares to start a thread about their client again? :es

Jonathan Reed4 said:Oh, really? :rolleyes:

So, the title is actually an issue after all. :lol:
Fine then, you guys come up with something. We'll just accept whatever you decide on.

By the way, that guy whose name we aren't allowed to mention announced he’s dropping the results of his grueling, weeks-long analysis of Continental's films tomorrow. This makes having a solid topic even more important so we can actually discuss it.
Or did that guy's legal team threaten a new lawsuit if anyone dares to start a thread about their client again? :es

Well, that's exactly why I left him out of the title.😁

Maybe we could agree to write without mentioning his name at all?

P.s. It should probably be a new thread, complete with a fresh intro post.

Charles Fox10 said:Honestly, I have no clue where it belongs, but it certainly shouldn't be on Politics—we’re all a bit exhausted from that one. We cleared out the first topic for the usual reasons, and this second one was locked simply because the last few pages were just the same thing on repeat.

To be fair, I'm not even sure if there's anything left to say about this gentleman's life and work that hasn't been covered, but a headline framed around boycotting a major corporation's films isn't really what Politics is for.

Charles Fox10, you realize you can't read that anymore because it's been deleted, right?😁

Sean Cook2 said:Well, that's exactly why I left him out of the title.😁

Maybe we could agree to write without mentioning his name at all?

P.s. It should probably be a new thread, complete with a fresh intro post.

Exactly. Go for it. 👍 😁

Sean Cook2 said:Charles Fox10, you realize you can't read that anymore because it's been deleted, right?😁

And we still haven't gotten a straight answer on why "management" decided to wipe out one constructive thread.

Charles Fox10, are we allowed to start a petition here on PŽK to get back the thread about the petition for the man whose name we aren't allowed to mention? 😁

The thread is reopened, and we’re updating the title to something more appropriate.

Please keep things civil and refrain from personal attacks. Thanks.

Charles Fox10 said:Jonathan Reed4-no Mad Corner here for quite some time now

Sean Cook2's title isn't doing much for the topic or the discussion 🤷 perhaps there's a better way to frame this.

Henry Cox78, your thread was locked by a colleague with an explanation, and the moderators don't have the authority to move or edit polls.

Is that a technical limitation or a matter of principle? Because if we're talking principles, Henry Cox78 already conceded that you'd be violating his copyright if you messed with it—even if you did it for the good of the thread, which is clearly what's needed here.

Richard James2 said:Is that a technical limitation or a matter of principle? Because if we're talking principles, Henry Cox78 already conceded that you'd be violating his copyright if you messed with it—even if you did it for the good of the thread, which is clearly what's needed here.

Technically speaking. Besides, nothing's stopping Henry Cox78 from just starting a fresh thread without all the gamers.

Alright, thanks.

Henry Cox78, the ball is in your court now. 😁

To say I’m confused by how everyone is handling this topic would be an understatement—I honestly don't get the hesitation. Is this a political issue? Of course it is! And why are we avoiding naming names here? (I mean, looking at how things went down with Prince Harry, it feels like we're following a certain pattern...) For me, this is just another political question that deserves a totally open, wide-ranging debate without all the walking on eggshells...

p.s:
I just caught wind of what actually happened... I was actually wondering why the thread had gone so quiet... He really shouldn't have let it get to him, you know? Being a public figure means you have to develop thick skin for everything—even the nasty comments...