The absolute worst part about this whole thing is that this kind of trolling always ends up playing right into the troll's hands. The thread is just going to get buried under a mountain of pointless arguing and everyone trying to one-up each other. Eventually, the mods and admins are going to get sick of the chaos—which, honestly, I don't blame them—and they’ll just shut the whole thing down. The troll walks away scot-free without any consequences, and we’re all left right back where we started, circling the drain. It would be so simple to fix this in five minutes if someone in charge actually had the guts to just post this: Look, you guys are fighting over a single detail that's actually pretty easy to settle. Since we can't quote posts that aren't there, the only way to clear this up is to actually show the receipts. So, McAuliffe (or whoever else wants to play this game) why don't you go ahead and quote those specific posts from 2009 you're claiming prove you were against the new bylaws? If you can't pull them up, then it’s perfectly fair to assume they don't exist and you never wrote them. After that, any more back-and-forth is just pure trolling.
I can't believe I'm even typing this out—it’s just one of those things that gets under your skin, you know? It’s like when you see someone arguing about whether a hot dog is a sandwich; it’s fundamentally silly, yet people will go to war over it. Anyway, back to the point. There's a certain level of absurdity in how people approach these topics lately—just a total lack of nuance—but I suppose that's just how things are going now. It's all very predictable, really. Not that I'm complaining, per se, but it does make for a tiring conversation if you're looking for anything resembling actual depth. Just my two cents. kaže: Look, that’s a perfect example of how you can write an entire manifesto—just a massive, sprawling wall of text—and still fail to actually deny the one key fact that matters. It’s funny, really—not a single person on this entire forum, not even Adam Collins4 himself, can actually pull up a single post from 2009 where he was running around complaining about that so-called "traitorous" statute. We don't have a shred of evidence, let alone an actual eyewitness, to prove he ever even wrote those posts in the first place. Look, there’s one thing you just can't argue with—and honestly, that’s the whole point right there. So, here’s the deal regarding that claim—the one suggesting you didn't actually write those posts, or that you weren't out there on the forum making a fuss about passing that so-called "traitorous" statute. It's nonsense. Purely nonsense. I know exactly what was written, and I know exactly where the stance was taken. Everything said was said by me, plain and simple.
Here’s the thing—Adam Collins4 doesn't actually have to prove a damn thing because he never made any claims to begin with. You're the one out here making all the assertions...
I just can't wrap my head around the basics... honestly.🤣
Look, I’ve already pointed out plenty—for instance, how you constantly insult people and pivot to ad hominem attacks instead of actually sticking to the topic. But here you are, playing the victim and pretending you're ready to have a reasoned, logical debate.
Look, let me break this down for you—what actually constitutes an argument versus just calling someone a liar or obsessing over their character for two or three topics on a platform like Politics? It’s a fine line, really. An actual argument involves staying on the topic at hand—you know, facts, logic, maybe some decent evidence—instead of just circling the drain by attacking the person making the point. If you spend all your energy labeling your opponent a slanderer or just fixating on their supposed motives instead of the actual issue, you aren't arguing anymore. You're just performing. It becomes this weird, repetitive loop where the original point gets lost in the noise of personal grievances. It's basically just white noise dressed up as debate.
Look, McAliffe was claiming that Karamarko and those guys from the headquarters stayed silent back in 2009 when the bylaws were being passed. But now, he’s totally dodging the whole point. He’s avoiding showing what an actual "reasoned debate" looks like or how you’d even go about proving someone's silence or inaction. Instead, he just keeps trolling, acting like someone else needs to prove his theory about their silence. But we've already got the proof right here—it's the fact that nobody on this board, not even McAliffe himself, can point to a single post from 2009 where he was complaining about those supposed traitorous bylaws. There isn't a single witness either who saw him posting stuff like that back then.
It’s actually good you showed up here, because now everyone can see firsthand just how much of a relentless, shameless troll you really are. You keep jumping from one topic to the next, but you still haven't managed to address the one thing that actually matters: the fact that nobody on this entire board—including yourself—can produce a single post from 2009 where you were supposedly complaining about that "traitorous" statute. There isn't a single witness to back up your claim that you ever wrote anything like that. That’s just the reality of it, and it serves as pretty solid proof that those posts never existed, yet you haven't offered a single shred of a counterargument. I also want to point out to the mods and everyone else how incredibly meticulous they are when replying to my posts, yet they completely dodge my one specific question: the one where I asked you to stop calling me ignorant and instead show some basic logic. Specifically, since you demand I prove your silence, why don't you provide evidence that the leadership and the campaign staff back in 2009 stayed quiet and didn't protest the introduction of the statute? It’s funny how you have an answer for everything except that one point. It’s just more proof that you’re a troll—and a particularly brazen one at that, considering you had the nerve to bring this nonsense even over to the politics section. Honestly, I blame the moderators for letting this slide; they should be handing out bans for this kind of behavior instead of just watching it happen.
Look, regarding your little crusade to pin everything on me—I can push back against every single one of your accusations with actual facts if I feel like it. If you’re honestly convinced I’ve done something wrong or broken the site rules, go ahead and start a dedicated thread. I’ll be happy to lay it all out there and prove exactly how you’ve been spreading slander and lying through your teeth. Like that whole nonsense about people demanding Cyrillic or that bit about the FBI director being part of some conspiracy... just more fabrications. I didn't call you a pathetic loser, though that's just another one of your lies waiting to be debunked. I'm not going to waste my breath arguing this here, so just open a new topic where I can systematically dismantle your attempts at manipulation and trolling.
Adam Collins4 said:Here we go again. Once more, you’re taking your own baseless assertions and rebranding them as "facts" and "arguments"... all in a few lines of text.
Do you realize that just because you label something a fact doesn't magically make it one?
You made a claim. Do you have proof for it, or not? ☕
So, since you can't provide any proof, you pivot to spinning tales and perfidious trolling. You demand that others prove things just so you can deny them, even though it's completely unnecessary because you haven't provided an actual ARGUMENT that requires refutation... does that click?
And I am not "defending myself with silence." I'm simply refusing to play along with these games where I'm expected to argue against something you aren't even capable of proving. What, am I supposed to prove a negative?
Shall we move on to another lesson in failed logic?
Furthermore, you keep crying about trolling and provocation, but one thing is crystal clear:
a) On several different threads, you've targeted me personally, attacking my integrity... which is a textbook ad hominem, trolling, and flame war tactic.
b) You've called me a liar multiple times, despite being the one who can't back up a single thing you say.
c) You've labeled me a slanderer, which—for the record—is actually actionable under US law.
And now you’re playing the victim.
We can continue once you grasp the basics: the person making a claim has the burden of proof to demonstrate it. The other person just needs to sit back and watch as the first person slowly sinks into their own web of spin. 😉
That's a perfect example of how you wrote a whole essay without ever addressing the core fact. The reality is, nobody on this forum, not even Adam Collins4 himself, can produce a single post from 2009 showing him complaining about that so-called traitorous statute. There isn't a single witness either to confirm he ever wrote such posts. The fact that you can't debunk that is the actual argument proving that you didn't write those posts and weren't protesting the adoption of that statute on the forum.
Adam Collins4 said:Look, man, what part of this isn't clicking for you?
Let’s try a little game where you FINALLY grasp the concept that if someone makes a claim, they actually have to back it up with some damn evidence... you get that, right? Is the basic foundation of an actual debate too much to wrap your head around?
I already told you—in an American courtroom, the defendant doesn't even have to open their mouth. It’s on the prosecution to prove everything they’re claiming...
If we followed your twisted logic, it would go something like this:
"Sir, you're guilty, now please prove that you aren't."
And don't even get me started on the whining and the constant trolling to avoid being called out. You've called me a slanderer more than a few times—which, by the way, means you're straight-up breaking US laws, yet you still have the nerve to point fingers at me...🤮
You spend almost every day attacking people—from high-ranking politicians down to local officials in cities like Buffalo—claiming they stayed silent back in 2009 and didn't protest when those traitorous bylaws were introduced. So, since you're such a pro at teaching lessons on how to argue properly, why don't you show a novice like me how one actually proves someone was being silent?What proof do you actually have that those guys in the administration were quiet and didn't push back against the bylaws in 2009?Go ahead, show me the receipts.
Look, I didn't start this thread just to go after some random guy on a message board. My goal here is actually to dig into what’s going wrong with the political landscape. If I'm the one causing the friction, then just hit me with a permanent ban and let's call it a day. But if I'm not the issue, then we really need to step up, identify the actual problem, and deal with it. There are plenty of people out there—myself included, I guess—who just want to have an actual debate based on logic, without all the constant bickering, ego trips, and petty power plays.
Let’s stick to the facts here. The reality is, nobody on this board—not even mcaucliff himself—has produced a single screenshot or link showing him complaining about that so-called treasonous statute back in 2009. We don't have one eyewitness, one shred of evidence, proving he ever actually wrote those posts. That is an undisputed fact. And if that's the case, there's really only one logical conclusion: those posts don't exist. mcaucliff didn't write them. That fact serves as a solid argument for the idea that mcaucliffe never wrote those things and was completely silent regarding the statute in 2009. This whole thing is just blatant trolling—throwing out random claims without providing a single piece of proof that they ever happened. It’s also pretty ridiculous seeing these wild comparisons to the legal system and courtrooms. In an American courtroom, you have the presumption of innocence, but on an internet forum? There is no such rule regarding credibility. Not to mention the sheer irony of people claiming someone is "defending themselves through silence," when the guy is actually pumping out mile-long essays all day and only uses silence when he's being asked to produce the very posts everyone is looking for. If that isn't trolling, then I must be losing my mind, and honestly, just give me a permanent ban. But if it is trolling, it’s high time the moderators actually started doing their jobs.
Maybe we could actually fix things if the mods gave a damn. I only started this thread because the situation in the PDF files got so out of hand that the moderators just stepped in to shut down entire topics and ban everyone in sight. Instead of actually addressing the issue, they just showed up to prove my point: their solution to any conflict is to just wipe out regardless of who actually started the trolling. This way of doing things has backfired big time—now you've got these trolls acting like they own the place, trying to lecture the mods like they’re the ones in the wrong! It's ridiculous. I'll say it again: if I'm the one causing the trouble, go ahead and hit me with a permanent ban but at least tell me what I did wrong first. If I'm not the problem, then punish the actual agitator. I laid it all out—how these issues start and who's pulling the strings.
Adam Collins4 said:And why on earth would anyone bother trying to prove anything on this forum when you can't even back up your own claims with a single shred of logic or actual evidence?
It’s funny, really—you’ve been asked more than a few times to actually substantiate what you’re saying... but, lo and behold, you just deflect. You try to pass the buck to someone else who didn't even make the claim in the first place, demanding they provide indirect proof for *your* points—which, suddenly, have become "arguments" simply because you decided they were.
I’m with you there; it’s nothing but textbook trolling. The clearest sign of it is when certain people realize they can't defend their own positions, so they just pivot to calling everyone else liars or slanderers (which, by the way, is something the Department of Justice takes very seriously) before having the nerve to lecture us about who's actually trolling whom.
I honestly want to know how much longer the moderators are going to let this specific group get away with it. They spend their time calling people pathetic, accusing them of lying—despite never proving a single one of their own fabrications—and jumping from topic to topic just to settle scores with anyone who disagrees with them. It seems like they're allowed to do it simply because they're part of the "in-crowd." So, I'll ask: how long is this actually going to last?
Let's play a little game where I pretend I'm the moderator for a second: Gentlemen, you're fighting over a tiny detail that we can settle pretty quickly. Since we can't quote posts that don't exist, the only way to solve this dilemma is to quote the actual posts if they are out there. So, Adam Collins4 (or whoever else feels like it) why don't you go ahead and quote those posts from 2009 you're claiming to have made against the adoption of that statute. If you can't do that, it's perfectly fair to assume those posts don't exist and you never wrote them. Anything else after that is just pure trolling.
There’s actually a massive loophole in that rule where everyone involved in a debate gets slapped with the same penalty. It basically assumes that if someone starts trolling or throwing out provocations, the person reacting in kind is just as guilty. But I wasn't trolling or being provocative here. I was just defending myself against being called a liar, pointing out the fact that neither Adam Collins4 nor anyone else had actually produced a single post to back up their claim. If someone is clearly trolling while simultaneously calling me a liar, I have to push back—you can't just label my self-defense as more trolling. I know you mods are swamped and this kind of petty stuff is probably a headache for you, but as users, we expect the moderation here to be both efficient and fair. If you can't manage that, then maybe don't bother moderating at all. Anyone can step up and call themselves a mod just to drop in occasionally, delete some posts, and hand out warnings.
I’ve got one more thing weighing on my mind, especially since the moderator already dropped a warning. Does bringing this whole argument back up—any mention of it at all—count as breaking that warning? For instance, if tomorrow or even a few days from now Adam Collins4 jumps into some completely different thread just to claim I was lying about him not posting back in 2009 (basically trying to paint me as a liar to discredit me, regardless of what we're actually talking about), do I have the right to report that? And would there actually be consequences for them? I’m asking because without some kind of rule here, we're just going to end up spinning in circles. Adam Collins4 throws a jab, I snap back because I'm trying to defend myself, he hits back again, and we're stuck in this loop... eventually reaching a point where everyone involved gets penalized equally, no matter who actually started the mess. Charles Fox10, I guess this question is mostly directed at you, since you were the one who pointed toward this solution in the first place.
Otherwise, everyone involved in this kind of exchange will face sanctions, regardless of who started it.
The issue boils down to the rules. They basically let mods just cut through any friction or debate without caring who actually threw the first punch. I get the logic—mods don't have all day to play detective—but when a situation starts snowballing, shouldn't it be in everyone's interest to actually pinpoint what caused the mess? If you hang out in the politics section long enough, you notice the same pattern: it’s almost always Adam Collins4 clashing with everyone else. It's weird how that one guy keeps landing in these situations. I laid out my own experience earlier; it was pretty straightforward and shows how fast things escalate. It started with someone asking a simple question, just wanting to see some posts from back in 2009 if they even existed. Instead of providing proof, the guy just tried to outsmart the questioner and turned it into an attack. I don't see why the mod can't just step in and handle it properly instead of just defaulting to repression, handing out warnings, and deleting everything.
So, if a moderator starts handing out warnings and preaching about "proper conduct," maybe someone should tell me if it's actually considered correct when one user just flat-out refuses to acknowledge they already answered a question or show the posts they supposedly made. Is that right? And then, after playing deaf to the whole thing, once someone concludes those posts don't exist, that same user suddenly flips the switch and starts attacking everyone. Is that what we're calling a constructive discussion these days?
Well, if it isn't, then why didn't you answer a single one of my points? This whole thing you posted doesn't fix anything. You were all up in the other thread warning everyone about ad hominem attacks, but I haven't attacked anyone personally. We’re talking about credibility here. McAuliffe spends his days tearing people apart—like the GOP leadership or the campaign staff—by claiming everything they do is untrustworthy just because they kept their mouths shut back in 2009 during those local policy debates. Meanwhile, he can't even prove he actually spoke out against those policies himself. If me pointing out his lack of credibility—because of that silence in '09—is an ad hominem, then it’s also an ad hominem when he tries to paint the party leaders as liars for the exact same reason. I’d love to know how many times McAuliffe has been flagged for using that same tactic before.
So, here’s the proof of how this whole mess actually plays out. Then the moderator swoops in and starts handing out warnings like candy. Why am I the one getting flagged? Just because I asked another user to actually produce their old posts from 2009—you know, the ones where they supposedly complained about those traitorous bylaws—and after being ignored several times, I finally just accepted that the posts don't exist. I mean, what other conclusion am I supposed to draw when things go down like that? These are the exact moments where moderators actually need to step up and moderate. Instead of playing cop, why can't a mod just jump into the thread and say: "Look guys, you're fighting over a technicality we can settle right now. Since we can't quote posts that aren't there, the only way to solve this dilemma is to see the evidence. So, mcaucliffe (or whoever), go ahead and quote those 2009 posts where you were protesting the statute change. If you can't do it, then it's perfectly fair to conclude those posts don't exist and you never wrote them. Anything else after that is just trolling." Simple as that. End of story.
Is it really that much of a struggle to just answer a few basic questions? I mean, if you ask someone on a forum multiple times to point out their own past posts—assuming they actually have any—and they just dodge the question every single time without showing a single thing... Am I some kind of liar for concluding those posts don't exist? Or is this person, who refuses to prove they ever wrote anything while calling my conclusion a lie, just a textbook troll? And one more thing. How else are you supposed to prove something doesn't exist on a message board, other than the fact that the person claiming it exists won't show any proof despite being asked repeatedly? I’m looking for actual answers here, so just come clean: who's actually trolling the politics thread?
Robert Hall7 said:Ask me how long I've been waiting for a single post to load.
Why would I even ask you that? It doesn’t change the reality of what’s happening on this site. The policy here seems to be that the mods have been nuking dozens of posts over the last few days—mostly in those specific threads where mcaucliffe is active. If I'm the one causing issues, then fine, point out exactly what I did wrong and hand out the penalty. But if someone else is the actual problem, then go after them. Stop letting the trolling slide. There are people here who just want to have a decent conversation without all the constant back-and-forth, the ego trips, and the finger-pointing. It’s weird... most of us aren't out here attacking each other daily, yet there’s this endless cycle of users getting dragged into arguments with mcaucliffe, who seems to have an accusation ready for absolutely everything.
The reality is, over the last few days on the politics board, the mods have been stuck cleaning up and nuking dozens of posts at a time. To me, that’s just proof that something is fundamentally broken and the discussions aren't actually going anywhere productive. I’m not trying to tear the whole system down or anything; I'm just looking for someone to point out who's actually causing the mess and hold them accountable instead of just using heavy-handed tactics to fix everything. Honestly, seeing you guys delete this much content just confirms what I’ve been saying about how things are sliding downhill in the politics section.
Robert Hall7 said:So, you’re complaining about those posts your colleagues deleted? Fine. We aren't deleting anything anymore, but don't go calling us out on social media.
No, no... it’s not just about that. I’m talking about lazy moderation. You let the trolls run wild, then when things finally boil over, you just come in with the sledgehammer and wipe everything out in one go. It's messy. If you think I'm the troll here, fine—just give me a permanent ban. I won't even fight it. But if you handle someone else's trolling by just nuking every single thread, that's just bad management. Do you see what I mean? There's this one guy on the board who keeps playing deaf whenever anyone asks him to produce his old posts from back in 2009 regarding those old federal statutes—assuming he even wrote them. And once people realize he's dodging the question, they conclude he probably never wrote them, which makes him unreliable. Then, instead of owning it, he starts trolling, insisting that *I* should be the one proving he didn't write them just so he can dodge answering my questions. When you ask a user multiple times to show proof of their past activity and they just refuse to provide a single link, am I a liar if I conclude those posts simply don't exist? Or is the guy who refuses to show them, while calling my conclusion a lie, actually just a textbook troll? And another thing. How is it even possible to "prove" a post doesn't exist on a forum, other than the fact that the person claiming they wrote it fails to produce anything despite being asked repeatedly? I'd love an answer to that. And seriously, just tell me—who is actually trolling the political threads here?