[Clarification] Am I doing something wrong? [Answered]

[Orlesian States]

How many times do I need to say that this thread originated as a topic for hypothetical discussion? Why must people religiously continue to argue when it really is not needed? Don't take it seriously. The idea in itself is ridiculous, the US will never become like China, but the purpose of this thread is to discuss hypotheticals surrounding that.
In a hypothetical sense, it'd be interesting in an alternate dimension entirely, but I would never in my life imagine it *actually* happening.

Sure. I can see the flag being in good fun, and yeah, perhaps there are individuals who take NS too seriously, but still, you have said that this is a thought experiment, yes? People should be allowed to share their thoughts on your presented points without debate, as it's not meant to be a debate now, is it? So this is inherently not about agreeing/disagreeing. It is merely a *hypothetical* topic of discussion on whether or not the United States should become like the PRC, right? What am I missing here?

For the sake of ease, I will edit this in, rather than quote you every single time. Thought can lead to debate, yes. But that is not the point of this thread. Thought experiments aren't really inherently meant for arguments for or against, they are simply a melting pot of ideas. But that tends to fall on deaf ears, as people tend to let their personal beliefs go into discussions on points/hypotheticals in regards to social/political stances. Rational or otherwise. Basically, it seems that you are debating the points brought up by others, when I don't really think you should be. It should just be the hypothetical, non-serious discussion of a US-PRC transition.

Are posts like this inherently wrong? Like I'm trying to sound like a Mod or something? I'm more than aware that I'm no such thing, and have already made the mistake of trying to assist when it is merely the Mods' job, and would like to prevent that from happening again.

Basically, are posts with the intention to dissuade/discourage arguing/fighting over specific topics inherently bad, because it isn't really my responsibility? Or are they completely fine? Not to make an issue of a non-issue and give the mods yet another thing to deal with, I'd just really like to be clarified.

[Esternial]

Sorry it took a while for anyone to respond.

There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to temper or calm down people if you're noticing they may be getting a bit too heated. The examples you've posted seem more "diplomatic" than anything we'd act on.
It does become a problem if your posts can be interpreted as an attempt to Impersonate a Mod or Use a Moderator as a Weapon, which is typically when they involve some kind of threat of moderation action.

Hope that clears things up!

[Orlesian States]

Sorry it took a while for anyone to respond.

There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to temper or calm down people if you're noticing they may be getting a bit too heated. The examples you've posted seem more "diplomatic" than anything we'd act on.
It does become a problem if your posts can be interpreted as an attempt to Impersonate a Mod or Use a Moderator as a Weapon, which is typically when they involve some kind of threat of moderation action.

Hope that clears things up!

It's alright. This is merely a query and not a report, so I didn't expect it to be prioritized. (I hope that didn't sound rude in a sense; I just understand it taking time for a response to something less important.)

I like to try to calm things down and be 'diplomatic' at times, and I just wanted to be sure it wouldn't be misconceived as 'Mod Impersonating', as that'd be highly disrespectful. Thanks for the clarifications, Esternial! -I also apologize for reading this late, I've been away from NS for a bit due to some irl things.