If you're not going to defend your claims or explain yourself then you're not going to be permitted to continue making them.
You need to either respond to posts, or move on to other topics. That's how it works here and how we keep conversations moving.
The way I see it, you're just not able to respond. That's fine, but if you have no retort then you shouldn't continue to make the assertion.
Which things are false, and why?
Why do you assume only acts can have rightness? Many moral views rely on intention or belief and not actions. I don't necessarily agree with it, but you still need to address it.
You need to be more clear about how X is limited and why. And what even is an act? Is believing an action?
"X is right" is true can easily be "Bob believes murder is right is true" if you fail to restrict the meaning of X.
I can explain why actions matter: because of their consequences. Consequentialism provides justification for moral evaluation. It's something Deontologists have trouble with.
However, it's also easy to make a strong basis for virtue ethics when it comes to character judgement and what makes a person right or wrong without having to talk about an act itself in the conventional sense.
It's the forum wiki page. Of course I've contributed to it. You might be able to as well if you have something to add.
I said we wrote it for the purpose of giving the link to people like you who don't understand the issues with objective/subjective claims.
Please read the article and respond to it if you disagree.