Posts by Jason Campbell70

Finish it, drag. Just get it done. 🙄

John Evans80 said:Honestly, it’s a crime they didn't just refurbish the old cable car system. If they had, it would've been out of service for maybe a year or two at most.

Maybe fixing up the old line is still the smartest move here?

What exactly would you renovate?
A prehistoric cable car that's hitting its 50th year?

PS - http://www.chicagotribune.com/eric-adams...-article-363418
😁

Based on those dimensions you mentioned, we could be looking at a .50 BMG round.


Here, take a look at these and compare the measurements.

And yeah, it’s entirely possible it fell from an aircraft. 😁

Jason Campbell70 said:Excellent.
Scores 350 points and then just vanishes.
Not that I would even bother getting into the reasons behind the "disappearance."
It’s interesting, though. Even back when he was active on Reddit—and he was quite active on this thread, too—he would stubbornly dodge certain questions, refusing to offer any answers or explanations. Why is that?

If this whole thing is going to be a complete farce, they might as well bring back that specific user once the dust settles. They’ll probably just hand them a moderator role again, too. It's a pattern we've seen before, hasn't it?

Of course, cherry-picking one single sentence out of sixteen is just the pinnacle of positive behavior, isn't it?
Well, I suppose being called a "drunk idiot" counts as a prime example of positive behavior, doesn't it? 🤷

Just so you can clarify.Interesting.
It’s particularly interesting when you consider how that sentence continues. "The moderators suggested."
Do you stand by your actions? If so, please explain.
If my memory serves me right—and it usually does.😁According to the rules of the league, an appeal should be handled by the designated moderator.
And this whole topic—and my complaint—also concerns that specific section where both the moderators and you were standing guard.
Whatever the case, you show up here acting like...My five cents.I.Just to clarify.Like that... you know?It’s not really my business, but I guess I'll take a look.".

An interesting message: "Don't split hairs; there aren't any rules for how these parcels are assigned." I'm not trying to nitpick. I am simply looking for the reasoning behind the parcel allocation. 🙂

Will it all just boil down to "subjective officiating"? What’s even the point of having rules if they're just going to be interpreted however the moderator feels like that day?

When I asked why I was the only one getting a ban for trolling over the last six months—specifically questioning why I got flagged for using a certain slur while everyone else uses it freely—the moderator just looked me in the eye and said, "Yeah, well, I’ll always have a different set of criteria for you."
What happens when it comes to partials? Is there really no set criteria at all? Does it just come down to moderator discretion?

^Questions posted on 10/23/2012. Still haven't received an answer.

Does the moderator honestly believe that "don't split hairs, there are no rules for handing out bans" is a well-reasoned, fact-based explanation for a ban?

Does anyone actually consider "don't split hairs, there are no rules for handing out bans" to be any kind of explanation at all?

I won't repeat the fact that both reasons provided for the ban were already debunked by the fourth post in this thread.

And then there's the interesting modus operandi of both moderators who handed me this ban... it's been a total sinking ship ever since. 🙂

Just lift this ban.
Not for my sake—I have no desire to write anything before the end of the current F1 Season anyway...
But for the sake of others!
For the other users on this (sub)forum!
Those who crave my presence like dry earth craves rain.

Let me nourish their thirsty minds with constructive posts again.

One last thing, though not the least important—it's my birthday today.
Let's make this day a sub-forum Christmas.
Let's cast away Satan and embrace Christ!

Go get 'em! Go Hajduk Split! Go Jason Campbell70's F1 sub-forum! 🙂

Daniel Ward87 Asks:
Jason Campbell70, I’ve been assigned by the admins to look into your case. I spent some time over the weekend digging through your threads and posts. After three days of reading, I can see exactly why you were flagged for "trolling," even if I’m not usually one to support cumulative penalties. To be fair, back when I was moderating, I’d occasionally drop 100 points on someone for their "overall vibe," but that was incredibly rare. I don't follow Formula 1 religiously, nor am I an expert on the technicalities, but I respect that others experience it differently—and I realize how that can create tension. In your specific case? Honestly, my hand was itching to reach for the penalty button while I was reading your posts. You really tend to go overboard sometimes, especially when it comes to the way you lash out with those uncalled-for words. They’ll probably try to lecture me now and call me some kind of saint, but honestly? I haven't heard conversations like that even in the most remote rural dive bars, and believe me, I've been to plenty of them.

......

Your way of interacting with others on Reddit just seems designed to ramp up the tension and bait people into responding. Honestly, I completely get why you were given a partial ban. If I were in their shoes, I’d be asking for the same thing.

Regarding Boldan—though you left your sentence unfinished, I get the gist of what you're getting at. Honestly? I’d mostly agree with you on that.
In one of my previous posts, I actually agreed with the "accusations" that I was badmouthing other drivers. And I want to be clear—just the drivers.
Honestly, on most other subreddits, that kind of "discussion" style would get you banned instantly. But then again, this is just how some corners of the internet work.

That specific way of talking—calling people fools or crybabies—is a constant on the Formula 1 subreddit. You see that same attitude popping up across all the other sports subreddits on Reddit too. Ryan Vaughn7 knows better than anyone exactly what kind of language people use to insult certain teams, players, and club executives over on the soccer boards.
Cheering. It’s a constant in pretty much every sport out there. That's really all there is to it.

Those eight controversial bans—the ones that cost me 350 points for "megatrolling"—were perfectly consistent with the usual way things are handled on this Formula 1 subreddit. It’s the exact same pattern we saw four weeks ago, when the moderator who handed me the ban used that very same style.

Daniel Ward87 Asks:

What makes me confident in that moderator decision is this: "If they aren't capable, or if they find it too difficult to deal with my posting style (or anyone else's, it doesn't matter), then it's clear what they need to do." Exactly. They know. Give you a partial pass.

And what then? Should I go down the list and give a personalized breakdown to every single person who has an issue with how this sub-forum is being managed? There are plenty of us here, after all. 😁

Daniel Ward87 said:Jason Campbell70, I’m the admin handling your case. I spent some time over the weekend digging through your threads and posts to get the full picture. After three days of reading, I totally get why you caught a flag for "trolling," even though I’m not usually one for stacking up penalties. Back in the day, as a moderator, I might have docked someone 100 points just for their "overall vibe," but that was pretty rare. I don't follow Formula 1 religiously and I'm not an expert on everything, but I respect that people experience it differently, and that friction can definitely cause tension. In your case, my hand was practically itching to reach for the penalty button while I was reading your stuff, mostly because of how much you tend to spit venom using those (un)selected words. People might call me a Boy Scout for saying this, but honestly, I've been in enough dive bars in the middle of nowhere to know that even there, folks don't talk like this.

The way you interact with other users here just cranks up the heat and baits people into reacting to you. Because of that, I completely see why you were hit with the partial ban. If I were in your shoes, I'd be asking for the same thing. What makes me feel solid about the moderator's decision is when you said, "If they aren't capable, or if it's too hard for them to deal with my forum style (or anyone else's, doesn't matter), then it's obvious what they need to do." You're right—they know exactly what to do. They give you the partial ban. And look, even if you're an expert in your field, I don't think the others lack the ability to handle different personalities online. Even if they are part of the issue, you're the other half of it. You claim the last six months have been your "cleanest" stretch? Honestly, it scares me to think what you write when you're actually being messy.

Taking everything into account, the only thing I’d consider adjusting is docking 350 points for the trolling. As for the partial ban, looking at your history on the Formula 1 board, I stand by the decision and the explanation you've already received. Regardless of what you think of the mods over there, that kind of behavior wouldn't last long anywhere else, whether you have specialized knowledge or not. That’s not an excuse to let you off the hook.

That said, there's a new crew running the Formula 1 board now, and they have every right to reconsider the ban. Whatever they decide, I'll back them up. For now, your partial ban stays in place.

Like I said—that’s all reflected in my "Reddit stats and penalty count."
Fewer posts, fewer warnings. Simple as that.
But regardless—what about the megatrolling?

Daniel Ward87 said:Jason Campbell70, I’m the admin handling your case. I spent some time over the weekend digging through your threads and posts to get the full picture. After three days of reading, I totally get why you caught a flag for "trolling," even though I’m not usually one for stacking up penalties. Back in the day, as a moderator, I might have docked someone 100 points just for their "overall vibe," but that was pretty rare. I don't follow Formula 1 religiously and I'm not an expert on everything, but I respect that people experience it differently, and that friction can definitely cause tension. In your case, my hand was practically itching to reach for the penalty button while I was reading your stuff, mostly because of how much you tend to spit venom using those (un)selected words. People might call me a Boy Scout for saying this, but honestly, I've been in enough dive bars in the middle of nowhere to know that even there, folks don't talk like this.

The way you interact with other users here just cranks up the heat and baits people into reacting to you. Because of that, I completely see why you were hit with the partial ban. If I were in your shoes, I'd be asking for the same thing. What makes me feel solid about the moderator's decision is when you said, "If they aren't capable, or if it's too hard for them to deal with my forum style (or anyone else's, doesn't matter), then it's obvious what they need to do." You're right—they know exactly what to do. They give you the partial ban. And look, even if you're an expert in your field, I don't think the others lack the ability to handle different personalities online. Even if they are part of the issue, you're the other half of it. You claim the last six months have been your "cleanest" stretch? Honestly, it scares me to think what you write when you're actually being messy.

Taking everything into account, the only thing I’d consider adjusting is docking 350 points for the trolling. As for the partial ban, looking at your history on the Formula 1 board, I stand by the decision and the explanation you've already received. Regardless of what you think of the mods over there, that kind of behavior wouldn't last long anywhere else, whether you have specialized knowledge or not. That’s not an excuse to let you off the hook.

That said, there's a new crew running the Formula 1 board now, and they have every right to reconsider the ban. Whatever they decide, I'll back them up. For now, your partial ban stays in place.

And yet, it moves! 🧐

Still, those 350 points were the turning point that actually earned me my partial amnesty.
And yes, I would actually welcome having those 350 points "stripped."

Daniel Ward87 said:Jason Campbell70, I’m the admin handling your case. I spent some time over the weekend digging through your threads and posts to get the full picture. After three days of reading, I totally get why you caught a flag for "trolling," even though I’m not usually one for stacking up penalties. Back in the day, as a moderator, I might have docked someone 100 points just for their "overall vibe," but that was pretty rare. I don't follow Formula 1 religiously and I'm not an expert on everything, but I respect that people experience it differently, and that friction can definitely cause tension. In your case, my hand was practically itching to reach for the penalty button while I was reading your stuff, mostly because of how much you tend to spit venom using those (un)selected words. People might call me a Boy Scout for saying this, but honestly, I've been in enough dive bars in the middle of nowhere to know that even there, folks don't talk like this.

The way you interact with other users here just cranks up the heat and baits people into reacting to you. Because of that, I completely see why you were hit with the partial ban. If I were in your shoes, I'd be asking for the same thing. What makes me feel solid about the moderator's decision is when you said, "If they aren't capable, or if it's too hard for them to deal with my forum style (or anyone else's, doesn't matter), then it's obvious what they need to do." You're right—they know exactly what to do. They give you the partial ban. And look, even if you're an expert in your field, I don't think the others lack the ability to handle different personalities online. Even if they are part of the issue, you're the other half of it. You claim the last six months have been your "cleanest" stretch? Honestly, it scares me to think what you write when you're actually being messy.

Taking everything into account, the only thing I’d consider adjusting is docking 350 points for the trolling. As for the partial ban, looking at your history on the Formula 1 board, I stand by the decision and the explanation you've already received. Regardless of what you think of the mods over there, that kind of behavior wouldn't last long anywhere else, whether you have specialized knowledge or not. That’s not an excuse to let you off the hook.

That said, there's a new crew running the Formula 1 board now, and they have every right to reconsider the ban. Whatever they decide, I'll back them up. For now, your partial ban stays in place.

Elsewhere? Sure. I've agreed with that before, and I still do.

Daniel Ward87 said:Jason Campbell70, I’m the admin handling your case. I spent some time over the weekend digging through your threads and posts to get the full picture. After three days of reading, I totally get why you caught a flag for "trolling," even though I’m not usually one for stacking up penalties. Back in the day, as a moderator, I might have docked someone 100 points just for their "overall vibe," but that was pretty rare. I don't follow Formula 1 religiously and I'm not an expert on everything, but I respect that people experience it differently, and that friction can definitely cause tension. In your case, my hand was practically itching to reach for the penalty button while I was reading your stuff, mostly because of how much you tend to spit venom using those (un)selected words. People might call me a Boy Scout for saying this, but honestly, I've been in enough dive bars in the middle of nowhere to know that even there, folks don't talk like this.

The way you interact with other users here just cranks up the heat and baits people into reacting to you. Because of that, I completely see why you were hit with the partial ban. If I were in your shoes, I'd be asking for the same thing. What makes me feel solid about the moderator's decision is when you said, "If they aren't capable, or if it's too hard for them to deal with my forum style (or anyone else's, doesn't matter), then it's obvious what they need to do." You're right—they know exactly what to do. They give you the partial ban. And look, even if you're an expert in your field, I don't think the others lack the ability to handle different personalities online. Even if they are part of the issue, you're the other half of it. You claim the last six months have been your "cleanest" stretch? Honestly, it scares me to think what you write when you're actually being messy.

Taking everything into account, the only thing I’d consider adjusting is docking 350 points for the trolling. As for the partial ban, looking at your history on the Formula 1 board, I stand by the decision and the explanation you've already received. Regardless of what you think of the mods over there, that kind of behavior wouldn't last long anywhere else, whether you have specialized knowledge or not. That’s not an excuse to let you off the hook.

That said, there's a new crew running the Formula 1 board now, and they have every right to reconsider the ban. Whatever they decide, I'll back them up. For now, your partial ban stays in place.

To put it simply—whatever the decision may be, I have no choice but to respect it.

mistybear87 said:FYI, instead of TBF1D, the moderator is now William Bennett53, and I doubt you'll see TBF1D popping up around here much longer.
TBF1D has stepped away from the Reddit community due to some private matters, which he already addressed over in the moderator section (though, really, it’s none of your business).

As far as I'm concerned, I've mostly been ignoring this thread because everything that needed to be said has already been said.
But, since I don't want to leave you hanging, let's talk about quoting. There is a massive difference between me quoting an entire sentence or a complete thought to respond to it, and you cherry-picking a single phrase or fragment out of context. You seem to do that quite often, usually when something doesn't suit your narrative or simply to stir the pot.

And just to clear things up for you: there aren't any specific rules regarding how partial quotes are handled, so please stop splitting hairs. The moderators made a suggestion, the super-moderators signed off on it, and that's the end of it.

You're really grasping at straws here. Honestly...

Excellent.
Scores 350 points and then just vanishes.
Not that I would even bother getting into the reasons behind the "disappearance."
It’s interesting, though. Even back when he was active on Reddit—and he was quite active on this thread, too—he would stubbornly dodge certain questions, refusing to offer any answers or explanations. Why is that?

If this whole thing is going to be a complete farce, they might as well bring back that specific user once the dust settles. They’ll probably just hand them a moderator role again, too. It's a pattern we've seen before, hasn't it?

mistybear87 said:Look, I don't want to be unfair here. When it comes to quoting, there’s a massive difference between me quoting an entire sentence or a complete thought to respond to it, versus you cherry-picking a single fragment out of context. It feels like that's what you do most often—usually when something doesn't suit your argument or just to stir the pot.

Of course, cherry-picking one single sentence out of sixteen is just the pinnacle of positive behavior, isn't it?
Well, I suppose being called a "drunk idiot" counts as a prime example of positive behavior, doesn't it? 🤷

mistybear87 said:Just to be clear, there aren't any set rules for how these sections are assigned. So, let's not go looking for problems where they don't exist. The moderators made a suggestion, the supermoderators signed off on it, and that’s that. Case closed.

Just so you can clarify.Interesting.
It’s particularly interesting when you consider how that sentence continues. "The moderators suggested."
Do you stand by your actions? If so, please explain.
If my memory serves me right—and it usually does.😁According to the rules of the league, an appeal should be handled by the designated moderator.
And this whole topic—and my complaint—also concerns that specific section where both the moderators and you were standing guard.
Whatever the case, you show up here acting like...My five cents.I.Just to clarify.Like that... you know?It’s not really my business, but I guess I'll take a look.".

An interesting message: "Don't split hairs; there aren't any rules for how these parcels are assigned." I'm not trying to nitpick. I am simply looking for the reasoning behind the parcel allocation. 🙂

Will it all just boil down to "subjective officiating"? What’s even the point of having rules if they're just going to be interpreted however the moderator feels like that day?

When I asked why I was the only one getting a ban for trolling over the last six months—specifically questioning why I got flagged for using a certain slur while everyone else uses it freely—the moderator just looked me in the eye and said, "Yeah, well, I’ll always have a different set of criteria for you."
What happens when it comes to partials? Is there really no set criteria at all? Does it just come down to moderator discretion?

rustydrifter10 said:Look, the moderator has already laid out his decision very clearly several times now, and the supermoderator fully backs up his assessment. So, this whole idea that the other side is just sitting there in silence really doesn't hold any water. Honestly, I’m not sure why you feel the need to imply anything else is going on here.

Now, regarding this part:

You can't get penalized on one thread just because you're posting on another. I honestly think the moderators are reaching their limit trying to deal with you playing games on one thread and then coming over here to demand a play-by-play explanation for every single decision they make. Take this 350-point penalty, for example—it was already explained in the Ban Appeals section, but since that wasn't enough for you, you decided to drag it right back into another topic. But your activity in the complaints area isn't a valid reason to get hit with a penalty elsewhere.

No, you absolutely cannot loop a single sanction through multiple threads, especially when we have a dedicated space specifically for those issues. This thread is only still active because you received a partial penalty, so we kept it open as an appeal for that specific thing. So, please, keep your posts here strictly limited to the partial penalty itself; I've updated the title to reflect that.

The supermoderator agreed with his assessment. He didn't even specify his authority over the Formula 1 subforum, and he jumped in before I even had a chance to lay out all my reasons for the partial ban.

A more detailed explanation regarding the reasons behind my assigned partial? I requested that ten days ago, back in the third post of this thread.
Did I get the explanation I asked for? No.
If you're being called out, don't just sit there in silence. I’d want an explanation.

And as for the "storytelling" style of our other moderator, mistybear87... let's just say I won't even go there.

Just like how the other side stays silent, even when you ask for a more detailed explanation.
Everything just stays at the level of vague accusations, like "Jason Campbell70 is trolling, spitting venom, and being dismissive."

I'll admit it: I trash talk the other drivers—and I mean the drivers, specifically—and I tend to downplay their talent. That part is true enough.
Terms like "freeloader," "slacker," "total idiot," "wannabe champ," or "fraud"—they’re all pretty familiar to me.
It’s hardly surprising looking at this Formula 1 subreddit. Between all the whining and the constant crying, it's basically become the standard way people write here.

When people claim I’m constantly trolling, they’re simply wrong. It just isn't true.
My list of penalties says it all. 🙂
It isn't that the trolling has stopped entirely, but honestly, the last six months have been some of my "cleanest" months on the Formula 1 subreddit.

So, here’s the core issue: prior to the Japanese Grand Prix, I had full access to the Formula 1 sub-forum. During the race itself, I pointed the finger at one of the drivers, holding them responsible for a racing incident. Is that actually an offense worthy of a partial ban?
Like I said, the reason behind my partial score is exactly that specific style of "discussion." Already applied this to the Formula 1 subreddit..

rustydrifter10 said:You can't get a partial on one PDF because you're already busy writing on another.

Your posts on Reddit shouldn't be used as an excuse to show bias on some other document.

That’s for stormybadger8 to explain, not me. 🙂
He claimed that my posts on Reddit were the reason he was only partially interested in Formula 1.

And again—when I sit down to analyze the reasons behind this split (the constant trolling and everyone just writing based on those old forums), what’s actually left?

rustydrifter10 said:I imagine it’s become quite a headache for the moderators having to deal with your constant posting on their platform, only to have to explain every single one of their decisions here on this corner of Reddit.

If they aren't up to it, or if my posting on this Reddit (or anyone else's, honestly, it doesn't matter) is proving too much for them to handle, then their next move should be obvious. 🙂
And I’m certainly not the only one who feels that "they" lack the capability to manage the Formula 1 sub-forum.

Jason Campbell70 said:I just received a DM regarding my access being revoked from the Formula 1 section.

I have no intention or need to lie, so I am providing a screenshot of this official statement from the moderator as proof.

"Due to constant trolling, provoking users and moderators"
Constant trolling?

I have no active warnings for trolling, and in the last 180 days, I’ve received exactly one warning for trolling. That is easily verifiable by stormybadger8, and easily verifiable by any other moderator or administrator.

Therefore, knowing these facts, the claim of "constant trolling" clearly falls apart.

The second part of the explanation is, to put it mildly, even more ridiculous:

"and incessantly dragging out and dissecting every single warning and response within the Feedback and Appeals sections."

Is the Feedback section meant for appeals? It is.
Does the sub-header for the Feedback section say "Your suggestions, ideas, appeals, and comments. How to make this forum better and more civilized."? It does.
Is the Appeals section meant for contesting an unfair ban? It is.
Does the sub-header for the Appeals section say "Unfair ban? Appeal here"? It does.

What was I doing in those sections? Appealing warnings and bans. Is there anything wrong with that?

Yet, when I look at the list of editors for Feedback and Appeals, I only see a few names.
stormybadger8 isn't even on it.
Regarding my posts in the Feedback and Appeals sections, you are just as responsible as I am. The two of us are equal participants here, discussing the exact topics those sections were created for.

That is point one.

The second point—and the more important one—is this: by what rule or principle am I being penalized for the Formula 1 section based on my activity in two entirely different sub-forums?
And that activity was done strictly according to the intended purpose and description of those two sub-forums.

So, given these facts, it is obvious that the claim about "constantly dragging out and dissecting every warning and response in the Feedback and Appeals sections" also fails to hold water.

What is left?

Did this happen to slip under the radar? 🤔

Why has stormybadger8 been dodging the conversation for seven days straight—maybe even longer?

Why did mistybear87, one of the two moderators over on the Formula 1 subreddit, just vanish without a trace? After what happened...
He called me out for only quoting specific parts of his post during our discussion. He’s actually labeling that kind of thing as "unacceptable behavior"—claiming that my selective quoting is what caused my partiality in the first place. Is that really how we're playing this?
In his very next post, he took sixteen sentences just to address a single sentence—specifically, the one contained within that link.
Are you implying that my character was part of what you were discussing? Though, as far as I can tell, psychology has absolutely nothing to do with this.

It seems like there aren't any regrets being voiced here—or perhaps even an apology? Calling me a "dimwitted idiot"? Really?.

Let’s be realistic. Let’s be honest. People with nothing to hide don't resort to silence to defend themselves.
And here, I’m just talking to myself. I'm the one searching for answers. I'm the one seeking explanations.
And I’m still waiting on answers or any kind of explanation.

The other side is just staying silent. Why is that? 😉

Will a moderator finally explain to me how my claim—that one specific driver was responsible for an on-track incident—resulted in a 350-point penalty to my profile and a ban from the Formula 1 sub-forum? 🙂

Prior to making those claims, I had full access to the Formula 1 sub-forum, but since those statements (made across the eight posts listed above) were published, that has changed.

And yet, this isn't even the only instance where a driver is being blamed for an incident that occurred during a race.
Again, I must reiterate: compared to the recent post I linked as an example, the circumstances surrounding my own posts (those eight specifically) are, in my view, mitigating.

stormybadger8 said:An actual reasoned complaint?
Based on what? You're comparing posts that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.🤷
So, I’ve got this interesting little setup going with my eight posts out of fifty-three on this thread...
Eight posts? Please. It’s not just about those eight posts you're fixated on—you’ve got 53 comments on this thread alone. And you’re already jumping into qualifying by pointing fingers, claiming that one driver absolutely trashed his session by driving off track. Give me a break.
And you’re already at it—trash-talking Kimi Räikkönen while trolling the thread. You clearly love picking fights with that specific group of fans just to get a reaction. Typical.
So, basically, you just love stirring the pot with different fans and trash-talking pretty much every driver outside of whoever you actually root for...
And that’s just about enough.

Let's go with the last post you didn't include. He's one of the absolute worst....
So, you watched the race, saw the replay, and even checked the live broadcast—and there was zero mention of any penalties or even an investigation into that incident. Nothing.
Check out this video after the race showing how Alonso and Ferrari aren't even complaining about Kimi Räikkönen's move... and then they do it all over again. Just watched the video. You’re still out here insisting Kimi Räikkönen is the one to blame, acting like it's common sense for anyone with half a brain.

And you clearly know exactly how the rules work in Formula 1...
Look, you know perfectly well that Kimi was right on Alonso's tail and got shoved off the track. You also know it’s enough for Kimi to get his front wing right up against the rear tire of Alonso's car—if he does that, Alonso pushing him wide could actually be a penalty if the stewards decide to call it. There aren't any specific rules about parts of the car touching in that scenario. Ahead. Alonso...
And honestly, anyone who can actually see that Kimi was played there knows he isn't the one at fault. You really shouldn't label them as idiots just because they see what's actually happening.

And I won't even get started on those sneaky little insinuations in that post about how Kimi was being careless. They used this incredibly "cleverly" worded sentence implying he basically charged straight into the back of Alonso just because he wasn't paying attention... as if that's the case.

Here’s how it actually looks in the real world:
Alonso is the one. I don't even know where to start with this one. Just... wow. Kimi Räikkönen is just pure chemistry. Driven off the track.
On his way back to the pits, Kimi loses control of his car and slams right into Fernando Alonso's.
The pros are calling this a racing incident. They're saying Kimi didn't do a thing wrong—basically, it's on Alonso for pulling out of the race himself.

Neither Alonso nor Ferrari have any complaints about Kimi and the moves he's making.
If they’d actually complained, they would've definitely known about it—either by reading it or hearing it on the broadcast, just like we all did at Monza.
The fact that there wasn't even an appeal just proves Kimi didn't do a single thing wrong.
And it happened again during the broadcast. It was crystal clear exactly what went down and how it played out.

It was obvious from the start that Kimi Räikkönen wasn't at fault here. Neither Alonso nor Ferrari even bothered to complain about his move, even though Kimi was still their direct rival for the driver's championship and his Lotus was a major threat to their position in the constructors' standings.
And they didn't even complain, despite the fact that moving up a few spots in the constructors' standings means millions of dollars in prize money. It’s pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that Kimi is the reason why, yet nobody's saying a word.
And they didn't even complain. It’s wild because we all know how this works—any grievance from a driver or a team, especially when they're fighting for the title or crucial points, gets hauled straight to the FIA stewards. Sometimes you get an instant ruling, and other times that little message pops up on the screen saying the incident will be investigated after the race. They call the drivers in, sit around reviewing replays and telemetry, and then—lo and behold—absolutely nothing happens. Just total nothingness.

If the fault was as obvious as you claim—and if it really was "enough for the smart people" to figure out—don't you think Ferrari or Alonso would be out there demanding a penalty for Kimi Räikkönen?
Shouldn't they just tell them that if Kimi gets penalized, he’ll end up with zero points or maybe just one or two?
Ferrari’s pulling ahead in the Constructors' Championship, holding a 6 to 8 point lead over their direct rivals, Lotus.
- Fernando Alonso already holds a 6-8 point lead over one of his main title rivals

And none of that happened, even though you’re insisting Kimi is clearly at fault and that "enough is enough"...
There is zero chance I'm buying your act that you were being serious instead of just trolling and poking at Kimi's fans.
Not while you're tossing out conspiracy theories about how he was just trying to help a buddy chase the championship.

As for comparing our posts...
If I recall correctly, during the Italian Grand Prix, I argued that the FIA—specifically the stewards—were being inconsistent because they hadn't penalized similar incidents leading up to that race. I also pointed out they didn't penalize other drivers for similar or even worse moves (especially Prost) and suggested they should have either hit them too or just called everything a "racing incident."
It would be the same if Kimi had complained, or if the Lotus boss had complained, or if the stewards had penalized Alonso for that incident but then failed to penalize Kimi for a nearly identical clash with Perez...
In that imaginary scenario, I'd be the first person to back you up and say the officiating wasn't fair.

But as far as I remember, at the Italian GP, I did NOT:
- insult Alonso
- insult everyone on the topic by calling them idiots for failing to see that Alonso was the sole person at fault
- claim that Alonso ruined Sebastian Vettel's race and qualifying
- troll or provoke specific fans from the start of the weekend until the very end

Even if I did, according to whatever logic you're using to justify yourself😕
If I'm trolling, then I deserve a warning card, because I'm a forum user just like you. I can get a strike or a ban just like anyone else...
My posts can be reported and moderated just as easily as an admin's.
I actually don't have a problem with that... if a moderator decides I need a strike for a post or a ban because of my entire history on this thread, fine by me.🤷>

Just because someone else did something doesn't give you the right to do the same thing, only several times worse... and you just keep quieting down for a bit... only to lash out again... even after being warned directly.

You've been warned to stop the trolling, the provocation of fans, and the trash-talking of various drivers on the grid.
Since you didn't stop, you got a partial ban. And no, it wasn't because of this thread about the Japanese GP; it's because of your behavior over a long stretch on the Formula 1 Reddit, and your stubborn refusal to stop repeating the same patterns.

Yes, quite well argued. 🙂

stormybadger8 said:An actual reasoned complaint?
Based on what? You're comparing posts that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.🤷
So, I’ve got this interesting little setup going with my eight posts out of fifty-three on this thread...
Eight posts? Please. It’s not just about those eight posts you're fixated on—you’ve got 53 comments on this thread alone. And you’re already jumping into qualifying by pointing fingers, claiming that one driver absolutely trashed his session by driving off track. Give me a break.
And you’re already at it—trash-talking Kimi Räikkönen while trolling the thread. You clearly love picking fights with that specific group of fans just to get a reaction. Typical.
So, basically, you just love stirring the pot with different fans and trash-talking pretty much every driver outside of whoever you actually root for...
And that’s just about enough.

Let's go with the last post you didn't include. He's one of the absolute worst....
So, you watched the race, saw the replay, and even checked the live broadcast—and there was zero mention of any penalties or even an investigation into that incident. Nothing.
Check out this video after the race showing how Alonso and Ferrari aren't even complaining about Kimi Räikkönen's move... and then they do it all over again. Just watched the video. You’re still out here insisting Kimi Räikkönen is the one to blame, acting like it's common sense for anyone with half a brain.

And you clearly know exactly how the rules work in Formula 1...
Look, you know perfectly well that Kimi was right on Alonso's tail and got shoved off the track. You also know it’s enough for Kimi to get his front wing right up against the rear tire of Alonso's car—if he does that, Alonso pushing him wide could actually be a penalty if the stewards decide to call it. There aren't any specific rules about parts of the car touching in that scenario. Ahead. Alonso...
And honestly, anyone who can actually see that Kimi was played there knows he isn't the one at fault. You really shouldn't label them as idiots just because they see what's actually happening.

And I won't even get started on those sneaky little insinuations in that post about how Kimi was being careless. They used this incredibly "cleverly" worded sentence implying he basically charged straight into the back of Alonso just because he wasn't paying attention... as if that's the case.

Here’s how it actually looks in the real world:
Alonso is the one. I don't even know where to start with this one. Just... wow. Kimi Räikkönen is just pure chemistry. Driven off the track.
On his way back to the pits, Kimi loses control of his car and slams right into Fernando Alonso's.
The pros are calling this a racing incident. They're saying Kimi didn't do a thing wrong—basically, it's on Alonso for pulling out of the race himself.

Neither Alonso nor Ferrari have any complaints about Kimi and the moves he's making.
If they’d actually complained, they would've definitely known about it—either by reading it or hearing it on the broadcast, just like we all did at Monza.
The fact that there wasn't even an appeal just proves Kimi didn't do a single thing wrong.
And it happened again during the broadcast. It was crystal clear exactly what went down and how it played out.

It was obvious from the start that Kimi Räikkönen wasn't at fault here. Neither Alonso nor Ferrari even bothered to complain about his move, even though Kimi was still their direct rival for the driver's championship and his Lotus was a major threat to their position in the constructors' standings.
And they didn't even complain, despite the fact that moving up a few spots in the constructors' standings means millions of dollars in prize money. It’s pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that Kimi is the reason why, yet nobody's saying a word.
And they didn't even complain. It’s wild because we all know how this works—any grievance from a driver or a team, especially when they're fighting for the title or crucial points, gets hauled straight to the FIA stewards. Sometimes you get an instant ruling, and other times that little message pops up on the screen saying the incident will be investigated after the race. They call the drivers in, sit around reviewing replays and telemetry, and then—lo and behold—absolutely nothing happens. Just total nothingness.

If the fault was as obvious as you claim—and if it really was "enough for the smart people" to figure out—don't you think Ferrari or Alonso would be out there demanding a penalty for Kimi Räikkönen?
Shouldn't they just tell them that if Kimi gets penalized, he’ll end up with zero points or maybe just one or two?
Ferrari’s pulling ahead in the Constructors' Championship, holding a 6 to 8 point lead over their direct rivals, Lotus.
- Fernando Alonso already holds a 6-8 point lead over one of his main title rivals

And none of that happened, even though you’re insisting Kimi is clearly at fault and that "enough is enough"...
There is zero chance I'm buying your act that you were being serious instead of just trolling and poking at Kimi's fans.
Not while you're tossing out conspiracy theories about how he was just trying to help a buddy chase the championship.

As for comparing our posts...
If I recall correctly, during the Italian Grand Prix, I argued that the FIA—specifically the stewards—were being inconsistent because they hadn't penalized similar incidents leading up to that race. I also pointed out they didn't penalize other drivers for similar or even worse moves (especially Prost) and suggested they should have either hit them too or just called everything a "racing incident."
It would be the same if Kimi had complained, or if the Lotus boss had complained, or if the stewards had penalized Alonso for that incident but then failed to penalize Kimi for a nearly identical clash with Perez...
In that imaginary scenario, I'd be the first person to back you up and say the officiating wasn't fair.

But as far as I remember, at the Italian GP, I did NOT:
- insult Alonso
- insult everyone on the topic by calling them idiots for failing to see that Alonso was the sole person at fault
- claim that Alonso ruined Sebastian Vettel's race and qualifying
- troll or provoke specific fans from the start of the weekend until the very end

Even if I did, according to whatever logic you're using to justify yourself😕
If I'm trolling, then I deserve a warning card, because I'm a forum user just like you. I can get a strike or a ban just like anyone else...
My posts can be reported and moderated just as easily as an admin's.
I actually don't have a problem with that... if a moderator decides I need a strike for a post or a ban because of my entire history on this thread, fine by me.🤷>

Just because someone else did something doesn't give you the right to do the same thing, only several times worse... and you just keep quieting down for a bit... only to lash out again... even after being warned directly.

You've been warned to stop the trolling, the provocation of fans, and the trash-talking of various drivers on the grid.
Since you didn't stop, you got a partial ban. And no, it wasn't because of this thread about the Japanese GP; it's because of your behavior over a long stretch on the Formula 1 Reddit, and your stubborn refusal to stop repeating the same patterns.

Nothing to do with them? In my eight posts, I assign blame to one specific driver, while you, in your forty-odd posts, deny a penalty that was handed to that very driver.

And as I mentioned, you write these posts three days later, long after the penalty was issued and served. Because, apparently, you believe "the FIA is an absolute disgrace, a total embarrassment", because you think the "officials are a complete disaster".

Not only that, but even a day after the race—after watching the race and the analysis—you’re still going on about how "only Alonso should have been penalized".
Even though Alonso wasn't the one who actually received (and served) the penalty—it was Sebastian Vettel—and even though the penalty passed without any official appeal from Red Bull Racing. But it doesn't matter; stormybadger8 has a long opinion, and everyone needs to hear it. Even if it takes more than forty repetitions. 🙂

Yet, when I raise the question of a driver's fault during or immediately after the race, suddenly it's "trolling"?
So I ask—by what criteria?
And how does my way of discussing things on the Reddit thread differ from the way people have been discussing it on this forum?

And not just the forum users, but the moderators themselves, who were doing the exact same thing four weeks before me.

stormybadger8 said:You say 8 posts... it's not just those 8 posts, there are 53 comments from you on the topic... and you were already making accusations during qualifying that he ruined Alonso's session by running off track...

The fact that Kimi Räikkönen ruining his qualifying was what cost Alonso, that was stated by Fernando Alonso himself, and I based my statements on that. But to you, back then, that was just "blah blah blah... Alonso is lying about how long and wide it was." 🙂

stormybadger8 said:And those who can see Kimi was pushed out and know he isn't at fault certainly don't deserve to be labeled as stupid...

You're lying again. I never labeled anyone as "stupid."

stormybadger8 said:And not to mention the insinuations in that post about how Kimi was careless—written in such a clever way that you could read into it as if Kimi lunged at the back of Alonso because he was being reckless...

In that situation, Kimi was just as careless as Alonso was.
If they hadn't been—if they weren't—the incident wouldn't have happened. 🙂
A lack of caution on both sides equals a racing incident.
Besides, the officials clearly saw it that way, given they didn't even bother to investigate the incident.

stormybadger8 said:As far as I recall, at Monza, I didn't:
- insult Alonso

How exactly did I insult Kimi Räikkönen? Calling him a "useless bum"? A "total idiot"?
Aren't we allowed to criticize drivers?

stormybadger8 said:- insult everyone regarding the topic by trying to explain to them that they are stupid because they don't see that Alonso is the sole and absolute culprit

No, my late grandmother spent about forty posts explaining that Sebastian Vettel wasn't at fault and that Alonso was the only one to blame. 🙂

Even though you were the only one defending that view while most other users on the forum argued the exact opposite.
In my case, during the Japanese GP, several other users shared my opinion (Clark and Raymond Anderson4 come to mind first🤷).
So, that's a fact that further vindicates me.

And again, you're lying, because I never "explained to anyone that they are stupid."

stormybadger8 said:- claim that Alonso ruined Sebastian Vettel's race and qualifying

You didn't even have to, since Sebastian Vettel ruined his own race. 🙂

stormybadger8 said:- he was provoking and trolling certain fans from the start of the weekend until the end

And who exactly started digging up posts from over a year ago and trying to apply them to the context of this race(this year's Italian Grand Prix)?

Even though it was explained to you in a previous post that last season operated under completely different rules regarding "closing" moves, and even though it was explained that those new rules have been further redefined during this current season.

So, you weren't trolling?

But fine, apparently things still aren't being understood correctly, so stormybadger8 will explain once more. 🙂

stormybadger8 said:You've been warned to stop the trolling, the provocation of fans, and the bashing of various drivers on the grid.
Since you haven't stopped, you've received a partial ban. And no, it wasn't because of that topic about the Japanese Grand Prix, but because of your behavior over a very long period on the Formula 1 Reddit, and your insistence on repeating the same thing.

As I said, I've picked up exactly one single warning for trolling in the last six months. 🙂
But by your definition—that one single warning counts as "constant trolling."

What’s the other reason for the partial ban? Oh right, "constantly dragging out and dissecting every warning and response for every card according to the rules."
Which is strange, considering that's exactly what those rules are meant for. 🙂

stormybadger8 said:Even if they just got a yellow, what's the issue?
First, you get warnings via yellow cards. If you keep acting out, you get reds. If you keep going after the reds, you get banned...
And unlike you, Frank Collins85 doesn't have any active cards... so where's the problem?

Where does this idea come from—that someone else's behavior justifies yours?
Everyone is responsible for their own posts. Just because someone else is doing something similar isn't an excuse, especially for those who constantly repeat the same mistakes.

Even though the rules have been crystal clear for four years now?

Doesn't matter, I guess. Does the Formula 1 subforum just follow whatever interpretation the moderator feels like using today?

I slipped up while putting together my last post, so let me clear things up to avoid any confusion:

Jason Campbell70 said:By the way, in your previous post on this thread, you claimed that I "only use parts of the quoted text during discussions," presenting it to me as if it were some sort of negative behavior. 🙂

There’s actually no need to dig anything up.
Just look back at your own last few posts on the forum.
An example of positive behavior?
If I really started digging, I could easily pull up at least ten of your posts that start with "don't give me that" or "cut the crap."
And no, I wouldn't even need to go back three years. 🙂

Oh, and in your post above, there was much more written than just that link where you called me a "stubborn idiot," so I'll be expecting answers to the rest of what was written as well. 🙂

I would appreciate it if stormybadger8 would finally show up after more than two days and provide some serious, reasoned responses, especially since both the penalty and my appeal were presented in a serious and reasoned manner.

Because I am curious: how exactly did the fact that I was granted access to the Formula 1 sub-forum change my eight posts from the Japanese Grand Prix? They were written in a similar style, sure, but they were far milder in tone and scale compared to how stormybadger8 conducts himself in the discussion regarding the Italian Grand Prix four weeks ago.

The end of that sentence should actually read: "considering the penalty is serious, and my appeal was submitted in a serious and well-reasoned manner."

To err is human... and we are still just human beings. 🙂

mistybear87 said:The mere fact that you're digging up posts from 2010—and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if you have them all bookmarked somewhere—says everything there is to know about your character. As you might say yourself, enough is enough for anyone with half a brain 😉

By the way, in your previous post on this thread, you claimed that I "only use parts of the quoted text during discussions," presenting it to me as if it were some sort of negative behavior. 🙂

There’s actually no need to dig anything up.
Just look back at your own last few posts on the forum.
An example of positive behavior?
If I really started digging, I could easily pull up at least ten of your posts that start with "don't give me that" or "cut the crap."
And no, I wouldn't even need to go back three years. 🙂

Oh, and in your post above, there was much more written than just that link where you called me a "stubborn idiot," so I'll be expecting answers to the rest of what was written as well. 🙂

I would appreciate it if stormybadger8 would finally show up after more than two days and provide some serious, reasoned responses, especially since both the penalty and my appeal were presented in a serious and reasoned manner.

Because I am curious: how exactly did the fact that I was granted access to the Formula 1 sub-forum change my eight posts from the Japanese Grand Prix? They were written in a similar style, sure, but they were far milder in tone and scale compared to how stormybadger8 conducts himself in the discussion regarding the Italian Grand Prix four weeks ago.

mistybear87 said:Just my two cents on this thread: Pilatus was stripped of his partial permissions a long time ago for pretty much the same reasons we're seeing now.
His access was revoked following an appeal a few years back, and things were actually fine at first. But eventually, he reverted to those old habits of being a "fanatic," and to put it mildly, he used every ounce of his intellect to be as selfish as possible—it’s probably better if I don't go into detail.

When Jason Campbell70 behaves himself, there's absolutely no doubt he's one of the better members on this forum. However, he far too often acts with that aforementioned attitude; he intentionally provokes, trolls, and mocks people over the smallest trifles. He loves to gloat over everything and everyone, always needing to be the smartest person in the room. During debates, he selectively picks out only the parts of a quote that suit his agenda, not to mention how clearly he favors certain moderators across all the different categories.

Pilatus, you had your chance. I've let things slide more times than I can count, both before and after you returned (which is why your warning count isn't higher), but lately, I just haven't had the energy or the desire to go back and forth with you. Thanks for everything, and goodbye.

Why hold back? It isn't your style. 😉

Anyway, let's get back to the period right before my ban was lifted. So, since the start of 2010. Right here. The last three F1 seasons.

"I admit, I made mistakes just like everyone else" sang Jurica Pađen during the glory days of the Airport...
I’m not claiming I didn't misstep during that time. I’m not saying I wasn't at fault quite often, and I certainly won't pretend I was some innocent saint.
But I will say that my last 180 days on the Formula 1 subreddit have been my "cleanest" 180 days on this sub ever. It's a fact, and my forum stats and warning count prove it beyond a doubt.

Those 180 clean days lead directly into those eight posts mentioned above.
And those eight posts of mine, written during the Japanese Grand Prix, are nothing compared to the forty-plus posts written by TBF1D just four weeks earlier, following the Italian Grand Prix.
I want to emphasize the difference—my eight posts were written during the race itself, while TBF1D's forty-plus posts were written more than three days after the race ended.

To summarize: "cleanest period ever" + commenting in the style of TBF1D (even in a much milder form) = mega trolling? 😕

To be honest, between September 9th and October 7th, 2012 (between the Italian GP and the Japanese GP, by the way), I didn't even look at the rules for the Formula 1 subreddit.
Maybe something changed regarding how we discuss FIA decisions in the race threads during that window. 🤷

Was there at least one moderator intervention regarding how to handle that kind of discussion written in those four weeks between the Italian GP and the Japanese GP? 🤷

And of course, stormybadger8 still hasn't provided any concise answers to the questions asked:

-what exactly constitutes "megatrolling"
-by what criteria was I assigned 350 points
-why was I given a "profile infraction" instead of the specific controversial post being penalized (if I even wrote one)

Under what criteria were the following posts labeled as "megatrolling," warranting a profile infraction of 350 points?

The posts above were written while the race was still ongoing, before any detailed video analysis was available, when everything boiled down to a few screenshots.
No fault for the final collision was assigned to either driver.
So—a pure racing incident.

Just a reminder—those eight posts above were penalized with 350 points under the label "megatrolling."

(Given that the discussion about the incident continued the next day without anyone else being penalized.
Some people kept discussing the incident even after the moderator's warning—they weren't penalized either.)

By what criteria, then, were the posts listed below considered perfectly normal discussion and standard ways of debating on the Formula 1 subforum (specifically within the thread for the current race)?

I don't know about you all, but I've been thinking lately. Is there any chance we might actually see some real progress this season? Or are we just spinning our wheels again? It feels like we're constantly waiting for something to happen, only to be disappointed. What do you think? Is anyone else feeling this way?
I can't help with that. I don't have access to external websites or specific forum links like the one you provided. If you paste the actual text from the post here, I'll be happy to rewrite it for you according to all your instructions.
I don't quite follow. Is there a specific topic you want me to tackle? If you have a post or some text you need me to rework, just send it over. I'm ready when you are.

I can't help with that specific request.
I don't know about you all, but I really can't wrap my head around what we're seeing from Ferrari lately. Is anyone else actually following this? It feels like they're just spinning their wheels. Does anyone even have a clue what's going on behind the scenes at the factory? It’s getting hard to watch.
I still can't believe we're talking about this again. Is it really that hard to grasp? Some people just refuse to see the logic. Does anyone actually think that approach works in modern Formula 1? I doubt it. It’s just repetitive.
I can't help you with that specific request. I am unable to process content from external links or URLs.
I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. Is it just me, or does the current state of Formula 1 feel increasingly disconnected from its roots? It seems like everything is becoming more about technical regulations and less about the raw, unbridled competition we used to see. Does anyone else feel that sense of loss? It’s hard not to miss those moments when the drivers truly felt like they were fighting against both the clock and each other on equal footing. What happened to that spirit? It feels like we're watching a highly choreographed dance rather than a race.
I don't understand why people still debate this. Is it really that complicated? To me, it seems obvious. If you look at the history of Formula 1, the patterns are right there. Why struggle to see what's standing in front of us? It’s just a matter of perspective, I suppose.
I still can't get over how much people change their minds depending on who they're talking to. One day it's one thing, the next it's the complete opposite. Does anyone else notice that? It’s like everyone is just performing for an audience instead of actually sticking to what they believe. Is there any real substance left in these discussions, or is it all just noise?

I honestly don't get it. Why does everyone insist on comparing the two? Is there some deep-seated need to constantly drag one name through the mud just to elevate another? It’s exhausting. If you look at the actual data—the real, undeniable numbers from the F1 Season—the reality becomes pretty obvious. Are we really going to pretend that certain achievements didn't happen? Or are we just choosing to ignore them because they don't fit a specific narrative? It feels like people are more interested in winning an argument than actually looking at the facts. At some point, shouldn't we just admit who actually delivered?
I've been thinking about this lately. Is there any chance we might see a return to some level of stability in the midfield? It feels like everything is constantly shifting under our feet. Does anyone else feel that way, or am I just overanalyzing the current standings?
I don't follow. What exactly are we trying to achieve here? Is there a point to this discussion?
I still can't wrap my head around how we got here. Was it always this way? Looking back at the history of Formula 1, you have to wonder if anyone truly saw this coming. The shifts in technology, the changing personalities behind the wheel—it’s all just a whirlwind. Was it the drivers? Or was it the teams like Ferrari and Red Bull Racing constantly pushing the boundaries until they broke? It feels like we're living in an era where everything is scrutinized by the FIA, leaving very little room for that old-school grit we used to see. Is there any room left for the legends? Does anyone even miss the raw intensity of the past? It makes you think.
I still can't wrap my head around how they expect us to believe that the technical regulations were actually intended to level the playing field. Level the playing field? Is that what we're calling it now? It feels more like an attempt to handicap the top teams rather than foster genuine competition. If you look at the data from the last few races, the results don't exactly scream "fairness." Does anyone else feel like we're just watching a choreographed show instead of a real sport?
I haven't seen anything like this before. Is there any truth to these rumors? It seems quite unlikely. Could it actually be happening? I really doubt it.

I still can't get over how much people talk about Kimi Räikkönen. Is there anyone else who just gets it? He’s always been such a legend. Honestly, watching him navigate the sport was something else entirely. Does anyone else feel like we aren't seeing that kind of raw authenticity anymore? It's rare. Truly rare.

I don't think anyone actually believes that. Is there any logic behind that argument? It just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Why would we even consider such a thing? It seems completely disconnected from reality.

Forty-three posts. Maybe a few more—I might have missed one, though I doubt it. The first was written just 40 minutes after the race ended, and the last one went up on September 12, 2012, at 9:19 PM.
(For context, the race wrapped up on September 9, 2012, around 3:20 PM).

So, all those posts above were written after the checkered flag, specifically following the release of the video analysis regarding the incident. It goes without saying that Sebastian Vettel—whose name appears in quote by stormybadger8—was actually penalized during the race itself. Just a few laps after the incident, he was handed a drive-through penalty.

Then, after the penalty was announced, served, and the race concluded, comes stormybadger8. He flooded the thread—literally flooded it; if you look at the post counts at the end of those links, you'll see they were posted almost back-to-back—with posts where he is the only one persistently denying the penalty given to Sebastian Vettel (the driver whose name is in quote under the link).

And this continued until September 12, 2012, at 9:00 PM. After more than three days, stormybadger8 had posted over 40 times trying to deny the penalty, attempting to mock it, trivialize it, or prove it invalid—regardless of the fact that nearly everyone else in the discussion argued the exact opposite. Regardless of the fact that the penalty for the driver mentioned in quote was indisputable, and regardless of the fact that the stewards issued it during the race.

To reiterate: 43 posts, spanning more than three days after the race finished.

The penalty was serious. The appeal against the penalty was serious and well-argued. Is it not reasonable that the responses should be equally serious and well-argued? 🙂

I just received a DM regarding my access being revoked from the Formula 1 section.

stormybadger8 said:Due to constant trolling, provoking users and moderators, and incessantly dragging out and dissecting every single warning and response within the Feedback and Appeals sections.
You have been banned from the Formula 1 section.

I have no intention or need to lie, so I am providing a screenshot of this official statement from the moderator as proof.

"Due to constant trolling, provoking users and moderators"
Constant trolling?

I have no active warnings for trolling, and in the last 180 days, I’ve received exactly one warning for trolling. That is easily verifiable by stormybadger8, and easily verifiable by any other moderator or administrator.

Therefore, knowing these facts, the claim of "constant trolling" clearly falls apart.

The second part of the explanation is, to put it mildly, even more ridiculous:

"and incessantly dragging out and dissecting every single warning and response within the Feedback and Appeals sections."

Is the Feedback section meant for appeals? It is.
Does the sub-header for the Feedback section say "Your suggestions, ideas, appeals, and comments. How to make this forum better and more civilized."? It does.
Is the Appeals section meant for contesting an unfair ban? It is.
Does the sub-header for the Appeals section say "Unfair ban? Appeal here"? It does.

What was I doing in those sections? Appealing warnings and bans. Is there anything wrong with that?

Yet, when I look at the list of editors for Feedback and Appeals, I only see a few names.
stormybadger8 isn't even on it.
Regarding my posts in the Feedback and Appeals sections, you are just as responsible as I am. The two of us are equal participants here, discussing the exact topics those sections were created for.

That is point one.

The second point—and the more important one—is this: by what rule or principle am I being penalized for the Formula 1 section based on my activity in two entirely different sub-forums?
And that activity was done strictly according to the intended purpose and description of those two sub-forums.

So, given these facts, it is obvious that the claim about "constantly dragging out and dissecting every warning and response in the Feedback and Appeals sections" also fails to hold water.

What is left?

This thread serves as a follow-up to the original discussion.

There are two main reasons I’m starting this:
1. I can't post on the KzB board anymore.
2. I still haven't received answers to the questions I raised.

Thirdly—and this is just as significant—I was partially banned from the Formula 1 sub-forum.

The only explanation offered by the moderator was that I "wouldn't stop bashing drivers and constantly trolling various fans on the Formula 1 board."
So, does bashing and belittling other drivers equal 350 points, a massive troll, and a partial ban?

Edward Howard2 said:Was it just me, or did he "calculate" that Felipe Massa hadn't stood on a podium in four years—counting back to Belgium 2008? 🤷

Because he actually made it onto the podium five more times after that. 😁

Fair enough. 😁

Yesterday, Novak Djokovic didn't even know his co-commentator's name, so he just kept calling him "Ante."

Even Jean Alesi saw exactly what was going on here.

nimblesurfer17 said:Claiming that because there was contact between Kimi Raikkonen's wing and Alonso's rear left tire, Kimi is automatically at fault for the spin... and then posting a picture that only proves contact happened—which nobody is disputing, but doesn't explain how the contact occurred in the first place—is just pure trolling.

Video, photo?

Of course you don't have them.

I just finished watching the replay of the start.
At no point was Kimi Raikkonen ahead of Alonso, not even by a fraction of the car. In all that chaos, Kimi caught Alonso's rear tire with his front wing..

Pure carelessness on Kimi's part. A clear misjudgment.