Daniel Ward87 said:May has 31 days. You are citing Roman Leljak, who claims that in Canada alone, over 200,000 unarmed people—including children—were killed during May. This means, if my math isn't failing me, Tito’s partisans were killing roughly 6,452 people per day.
For context, Auschwitz operated for 1,128 days, and according to the latest data, approximately 1.1 million people were murdered there. That averages out to 975 people per day.
In short, the partisans clearly outdid the Nazis in certain regards.
Can you, or anyone else, believe this is trivialization? Perhaps some might think we are attempting to side with those who cover up atrocities. But my friends, that isn't the case; I know none of the Politics moderators are engaged in a crusade to hide crimes. It is simply that these exaggerations—much like the stories regarding 700,000 victims at Auschwitz—do not constitute serious History. They serve no purpose other than to falsify the past to influence modern ideological battles and manufacture new "truths." We are not the ones trying to invent truths; I recognize this was written sincerely, but it is inaccurate. What we are doing is identical to what happens on the Health board when they refuse to allow an equal presentation of "arguments" from the anti-vaccine crowd, or on the Natural Science board when someone attempts to defend creationism or Flat Earth theory using pseudo-scientific reasoning.
To conclude, we believe it is proper practice to issue a major ban to anyone on Politics who posts nebulous claims about 700,000 people being killed at Auschwitz, and we intend to continue doing so. And not just in this specific instance.
I am closing this thread now, as it is merely one in a long line of identical discussions. Please refrain from opening new threads about this because we are just spinning our wheels, and we don't have the time or resources to constantly hover here explaining the same thing over and over. For any significant shifts in moderator policy regarding specific boards, dissatisfied users may contact the forum owner. When the owner decides he wants a different approach from moderators on Health, Natural Science, Religion, Politics, or elsewhere, he will know what to do.
Here is my provisional forecast for Brazil, just so I don't mess anything up before the race gets underway.
1. Lewis Hamilton 2. Nico Rosberg 3. Sebastian Vettel 4. Kimi Raikkonen 5. Daniel Ricciardo 6. Max Verstappen 7. Nico Hulkenberg 8. Valtteri Bottas 9. Fernando Alonso 10. Carlos Sainz
So, what am I supposed to think? Did I actually pass Tempo? We both ran the numbers, and according to our math, I didn't. 🤔 But hey, if he says I did, then sure, maybe I did. 😁 👋
From an appeal to a full-blown crusade in just four posts...
Let’s start from square one: users with partial access rights don't have any standing to comment on this subforum, including when addressing the moderation team. We’ve loosened those restrictions slightly here because it hasn't been our standard practice until now, and because you pointed out a truly repulsive post that apparently slipped past the moderator's radar. However, the post has been flagged, the moderator has responded, the admin has seen it, and the matter will be resolved accordingly.
As for your whining regarding how much time can pass before a post is penalized, that has already been explained above. There aren't any rigid, codified rules governing this; there is only precedent. Currently, that precedent allows us to look back up to two weeks—and even longer if we are dealing with particularly vile content, which this certainly is. There is absolutely no need to quote private messages here, nor is there any need to constantly remind us of your limited access privileges. It is entirely irrelevant to the situation at hand. Thank you for the report.
1. Hamilton 2. Nico Rosberg 3. Sebastian Vettel 4. Kimi Raikkonen 5. Daniel Ricciardo 6. Max Verstappen 7. Nico Hulkenberg 8. Valtteri Bottas 9. Fernando Alonso 10. Carlos Sainz
When we issue a ban on a specific subforum—though I am specifically referring to the POTUS section since I moderate there and know our rules inside out—that individual receives a private message notifying them of the disciplinary action taken. If we set aside those instances where certain perennial troublemakers and their clones repeatedly spam threads with predictable intros, the actual list of people currently facing bans in the POTUS section is remarkably short. Getting a ban here is difficult; one would practically have to abuse the forum's appeal system to merit such a measure. It is highly unlikely that such an action was directed at you (and I see no reason why it would be), so there is really nothing to debate on that front. It is possible the server has glitched, or perhaps it is your computer. Both scenarios seem improbable, but given that the server has been known to exhibit some rather "eccentric behaviors" in the past, I wouldn't rule it out.
To prevent similar issues in the future, I ask you (and anyone else encountering this) to reach out via private message to one of us immediately. Your best bet is Nica, as they serve as the admin, but you can also contact me or Michelle Evans, as we are in constant communication regarding POTUS-related issues. If even that proves impossible because the server has completely lost its mind, your remaining options are to email the admin directly or use the report function on a post to flag the technical problem.
Regarding everything else, unless my colleagues have already clarified, I must say that I am firmly in favor of maintaining consistent criteria, even if I admit we occasionally struggle to ensure perfect uniformity. It is an active balancing act—one that cannot be perfectly achieved, but rather something we constantly strive for, case by case. As for this specific ban, I would need to review the entire discussion that led up to it. After all, Charles Fox10 is certainly not a moderator known for being hasty with disciplinary actions (a fact noted by users of various political persuasions), so resolving this would require significant retrospective analysis.
Should the issue with the appeal function recur, please, utilize one of the alternative contact methods suggested above.
We’ve taken a close look at your performance over these last ten months and have come to the conclusion that you might as well see this disciplinary period through to the end. Now, don't get me wrong—it wasn't necessarily the write-ups themselves that caught our attention, but rather certain other irregularities that we simply couldn't overlook.
If the romance has truly fizzled out again, it’s nothing short of a joke. Jergović is reliably quarrelsome, so I fail to see why anyone would expect things to go any differently in the second half. It's just like trying to crawl back to an ex.
"...and only when you approach her deep within her core do you notice the stains that only serve to haunt you and so you once again let her go, letting her walk away."
Hmm, the infraction carries a 400-point penalty—so it isn't quite as if you're perpetually on the verge of a violation—and the duration is set for one year. Given that nine months have already elapsed and there are only three remaining, perhaps we might consider an early removal, seeing as you haven't incurred a single additional mark in the meantime. I shall consult with my colleagues and get back to you shortly.
A 150-point penalty isn't reserved for mere trolling; it's for being truly egregious. In that particular post, you leveled accusations of mass murder against the Democratic Party. If you feel the penalties are unjust, the appeals section is where you should direct those grievances, whether for this specific infraction or any other. You'll find a copy of your original post in the private message sent to you alongside the penalty notification.
I noticed you filed a report, though I initially assumed you might have made a mistake. Why would a link to The New York Times—you know, a standard daily newspaper—be considered inappropriate?
William Bennett53 said:1. Lewis Hamilton 2. Nico Rosberg 3. Kimi Raikkonen 4. Daniel Ricciardo 5. Sebastian Vettel 6. Max Verstappen 7. Nico Hulkenberg 8. Valtteri Bottas 9. Romain Grosjean 10. Carlos Sainz
gold standard... 1. Lewis Hamilton 2. Nico Rosberg 3. Daniel Ricciardo 4. Sebastian Vettel 5. Max Verstappen 6. Kimi Raikkonen 7. Nico Hulkenberg 8. Sergio Perez 9. Fernando Alonso 10. Carlos Sainz
Yes, it really is. A technical glitch essentially lets those from the banned group post in the KSB section, while simultaneously blocking everyone else from contributing there.