I respect that you're naturally curious, but I can't really go into the specifics since we don't disclose why others get banned. Everything happens for a reason, and I'm sure his situation was no different—it wasn't just because he annoyed someone.
I honestly don't see why anyone is surprised that Phoenix was banned from Politics. To me, it feels hypocritical; if you actually know Phoenix's body of work on Politics—and you definitely do—you shouldn't be shocked. I’m not talking about his opinions, because there are hundreds of other users here with views just like his who post on Politics all the time. You always see people complaining on the right side that they get censored while liberals get a free pass, but are you really not seeing what's happening here? Let's drop this empty argument that he was banned for his views. He was banned because of how he treated people. You know perfectly well how abrasive he could be and how often he resorted to insults. It surprises me that you're overlooking that. You notice everyone else's insults instantly, though. So please, spare me the lectures about him being silenced for his opinions. And please, don't try to turn him into a martyr, especially after everything I've read in his posts where he was so disrespectful to others. If the media wants him, they can keep quoting him. That's not what this is about, so let's not go down that path.
And don't even get me started on the attacks against Simbu-Os. People get permanent bans for much less than what he was doing. After all that, Phoenix was tolerated for a long time. Honestly, it was a privilege that, at his request, he was given a specific corner where he could chat with his friends without anyone interfering. He just needed to stay in that lane. Don't start pointing fingers at others now, especially since you didn't say anything when he was using that space. Now that this topic has been touched upon, suddenly we're all acting dramatic and calling out everyone else. Please, it's not right. They could have let him continue, but he truly crossed the line this time. We are talking about Phoenix and his specific thread here. If you have evidence regarding people using clone accounts, report it to the sub moderators, the admins, Anderlon, Bajic, or even the Attorney General's office. But as far as Phoenix and his thread go, it's over, and this discussion is over too.
Are we talking about Phoenix and the topic at hand? Did anyone actually get an answer? I don't really see the point in playing lawyer for everyone else. The reality is, Phoenix is just dealing with what usually happens to forum members who get permanently banned. We should probably be focusing our discussion on how he lost his own privileges through his own mistakes. Honestly, I don't think there's much left to debate here.
Don't push him with questions like that; he hasn't earned it. Just because things went his way once doesn't mean he did anything right. He messed up. He had plenty of chances to fix things, and nobody stepped in to bail him out—he did this to himself. He just kept using those same old political tactics with all those clones. He's done it enough times now that he’s officially lost all credibility. You’ve seen why the topic was removed, so I think we can finally close this thread, especially since he won't be starting any new ones anyway.
With the option to eventually take over the other sub-forums too. 😬
You guys are never satisfied. If we didn't have Z4, you'd probably take over the whole internet. 😁
I can already see the new sections coming:
Sports / Go Yankees or go home Pets / Dogs and everything else History / The American Dream Travel / Coast to Coast Family / Parenting struggles Politics / DC Insider News
To be honest, I’m not sure if you're pulling my leg or what. Looking through your profile and your history, I don't see any evidence that you wrote a post that was subsequently deleted. From what I can tell, the only thing you posted yesterday was in that thread about "juvenile delinquency—is there a solution?" That's it. And none of your posts were critical enough to get taken down. I really don't see where you're claiming the author demanded an explanation, nor do I see anyone censoring you.
As for the topic itself, I don't see any Holocaust denial here. I know what it means to downplay the Holocaust. The OP just put forward a thesis for debate based on some minor indicators. It isn't about shifting responsibility away from Germany; it's questioning whether others could have done more to prevent it. Whether those indicators are actually true doesn't matter to me—I'll leave that for the rest of the users to hash out. My only real issue is that the thread was sloppily and amateurishly set up. But that's about it.
The post you reported is just the opening post of the thread. I don't see anything controversial in it. I'll let the admins decide (or maybe even Bajic and the DA if you want to get technical since you mentioned criminal law in your report), because personally, I don't see this as minimizing the Holocaust.
silvercobra11 said:Given both the forum rules and US law, I’m wondering how comments like "the brilliance of National Socialism," "Jews fared well in Canada," or "the Jewish question required a solution" are tolerated in historical threads, while any critical response to them gets deleted as off-topic or trolling.
for example:
Thanks
Regarding that first topic you mentioned, I don't see anything inherently problematic about it. It might feel a bit intense, but it isn't a manifesto; the author just provided a summary of Nazi Germany's platform at the time. From a historical standpoint, providing that kind of overview isn't forbidden. If it were, we couldn't write or print tons of books analyzing Germany during that era.
As for the thread about the suffering of Jews, I don't see a single deleted post there. Not the off-topic ones, nor the critical ones. The admins can verify this, so could you please point out specifically which critical posts were removed? I also don't see a comment stating "the Jewish question required a solution" in that thread. And the post "Jews fared well in Canada" really needs to be read in context with the rest of the discussion. They are comparing the percentages of Jews who survived in Canada versus neighboring countries where they practically vanished or were reduced to a tiny fraction of their former population. You have to read these things, and the whole thread, carefully to understand what's actually being discussed.
I'm a little confused by this complaint. Could you give me some specific examples that actually support your point?
We already asked everyone to stop targeting Countess and promised things would be sorted out, but clearly, that didn't work. It seems like requests are being ignored and people are still finding ways to push back against the moderator. Johnny, your ban expires in three days. Moving forward, any more attacks on Countess will result in a month-long ban, because it looks like there's no other way to handle this. We really did ask you all to stop while we wait for the admins to make a final call on the threads. That was it. But apparently, a simple agreement isn't enough.
John Palmer4, you were right to close it. Everything is fine.
Jeffrey Cooper7 said:So what? What does that even have to do with anything? I don't get why the page would load slowly just because there are too many GIFs in a thread. One more thing. Usually, before anyone becomes a moderator on a subforum, there's an intro thread to introduce them. But on the Jokes subforum, that never happens. It’s like some woman just fell from Mars onto that board and now she’s suddenly making up all these rules for us. Just wondering—if you don't mind me asking—we aren't exactly in North Korea, but what are the actual requirements for someone to get appointed to a subforum they've never been part of before? 🤷 Sorry, but I really can't get behind that...☕
Hey everyone, let's dial back the attacks on the moderator. There’s really no need to question her ability to lead. One decision—whether it was right or wrong—doesn't define someone's entire track record. Moving moderators between different subforums isn't anything new, and that's the case with Countess too. Let's drop the personal stuff; we can just discuss the actual issue with the thread and figure it out.
Paul Anderson7 Zachary Thompson2 said:If nothing changes, I’m honestly ready to start trolling her all over this board and leaving nonsense under every single one of her posts. She’ll end up getting banned by the admin because things just can't work like this. At this rate, she’ll be gone before any of us. With 1,500 posts—most of them just cluttering up various chat threads—she shouldn't be allowed to moderate there. Just remove her.
What I wrote applies to you specifically. You aren't helping yourself or anyone else by acting this way, so there's really no point. You don't need a long-term ban over something so trivial, so just try to relax. We can talk about whatever topics you want, but let's skip the pointless drama. Enough with the nonsense; nobody has the patience for this kind of stuff.
Can we just take a breath? I’d really like to talk about this calmly.
Let them have their fun. A little excitement wouldn't hurt around here; we don't need to spend all our time reading complaints. ☕ 😁 feraltrucker5, don't troll the thread, things were just getting good. 😠
Staying on topic—we've actually discussed increasing inbox capacity here before. I remember someone giving a solid explanation as to why the message limit is set where it is. If we could expand it, maybe we would, but I'll have to dig through the archives to find that specific thread.
It doesn't really matter; you just have to ask the man himself. This alert is actually a good thing—it keeps feraltrucker5 from getting too complacent and gives him a chance to sharpen his skills. ☕
I was just checking to see if you were filing a formal complaint. Since you aren't, no big deal. Look, people can argue about this all day, but my impression is that Ben Marshall said everything he needed to say from his end, so there's really nothing left to discuss. He explained his reasoning and why those penalties were handed out, and pointed out that the debate didn't belong in that specific setting. He made that clear here too. Regardless of who is involved, if a conversation shifts from the actual topic into pure provocation, then Ben Marshall’s explanation stands as final. I’m going to close this thread now; we won't be dragging this out further. That goes for this situation and the last one, too.
To be honest, this doesn't personally affect me—there isn't much here that warrants my interest or involvement. So don't worry, I didn't drop by looking for anything specific. As the moderator of this subforum, I was simply asking for clarification. It seems like everyone has made their position clear, and that's enough for me.
Let’s recap this quickly. You intentionally provoked him, which led to those justified warnings, right? You know that, you admit it, and yet you’re still filing an appeal? As for that other complaint regarding BM, it really has nothing to do with you. It’s pretty clear from the discussions on this sub that he apologized for his actions in that instance. The person who complained wasn't banned or anything; they just asked for an apology, which was granted. There’s honestly no reason for you to keep pushing this case. So, let me ask again: you knowingly provoked him, got deleted, did the exact same thing again, and then got warned? And now you're appealing that?