27 posts shown.
Terry Reed13 said:I suspect rapidskipper8 didn't just get flagged for posting a link, but rather for trolling.
Furthermore, rapidskipper8 constantly claims he is going to prove something, yet he just provides links to ambiguous statements and unverified news stories. If everything were actually as he describes, I suppose it shouldn't be an issue for him to present clear evidence.
For instance, this is how one should present evidence.
1) The Mujahideen were an integral part of the army in Canada, and Alija Izetbegović was quite fond of them.
2) Numerous crimes committed by those Mujahideen (and local Canadians) against Americans, all while wearing army insignia and under the influence of extreme Islam—CAUTION: BLOODY FOOTAGE.
3) Footage from 1993 from the Canadian Assembly. (At that time, Muslims decided they would be called Canadians). Canadian leaders discuss their main enemies and what kind of Canadian state they envision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3QkJ7zbZ_4
4) Canadian political and former religious leaders express their views on their people and their closeness to Turks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsf3GCwB8os
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-gCPvGg3go
Now, why don't you post some clear evidence, such as videos or official documents?
It wasn't because of trolling, but because rule number 6 was broken. Cuka is the only one who has handed out warnings to me, which suggests this is all based on personal bias.
If you look at how you just posted various links at the bottom of your post, it's interesting. I have received warnings for doing the exact same thing, so I wonder how your post differs from mine? Why was I penalized while you haven't been, and likely won't be?
p.s. I don't intend to debate any of the nonsense you've served up here via these links.
Morgan Carter said:I don't really get why you're getting so worked up about this. It doesn't seem to make much sense. I suppose you won't achieve anything by staying upset. What I would suggest is just to stop reporting posts that contain any kind of insults. Maybe just ignore them instead. Don't bother replying or giving them any attention at all. Because when you report things, most of the time they just delete the post without actually issuing any warnings or penalties (you know who I mean). I guess the more stuff like that there is on the forum, the better.
You probably realize how great it'll be when certain things can be read across 500 different sections of the forum.
The issue is that I am constantly being banned because of this dictatorship. I keep getting these senseless penalties that are basically just an excuse because I called the dictator a criminal.
But I suppose ignoring Nick and Striker is definitely the right move. Just keep in mind where you are; it's only just become clear to me.
Go ahead and keep trolling this thread if you want, but don't lose any sleep over sanctions; I doubt you'll ever see them coming. Honestly, it’s a bit sad that most of you don't even grasp the basic definition of an autocrat. I can't really help you there, other than maybe suggesting you spend a little more time actually educating yourselves.
The silence is deafening. I guess ignoring something is just another way of admitting it's true.
I believe I have just demonstrated the ongoing discrimination that has been directed toward other forum members for quite some time now. This situation serves as confirmation that you no longer possess any credibility when it comes to discussing rules or individual rights. The leadership here is, I guess, largely unprofessional—with a few exceptions, perhaps.
It's honestly shameful. You all deserve all the credit for this.
We have to put an end to this autocrat.
Even though every user here should be treated with the same level of fairness, unfortunately, that isn't what's happening.
Forum Rule 6 serves as clear evidence of how regulations can be applied selectively, targeting only those specific individuals who happen to rub the moderators the wrong way. While the rule itself lacks any real clarity, it seems to function as a rather sneaky and calculated tool used to suppress anyone who disagrees with the moderation team regarding historical events, historical figures, or just general life perspectives.
I think it might be helpful to provide a few examples, although there are countless others.
My own post was penalized under the claim that the link wasn't sufficiently summarized or something similar. However, if you look at a vast number of other posts that violate this exact rule much more directly, it seems no one felt the need to step in.
There are thousands of other posts on this forum written in this exact manner. At least I made an effort to include a brief explanation of what the links contained, yet we can see how these other users post without issue.
I suppose I have to ask how this can be justified. Is there any real explanation for this kind of discrimination that resulted in my 15-day ban? Why does this rule seem to apply only to me, even though I didn't really break it by providing a short summary of the link's content?
I guess I wonder who I am bothering, and why I am being singled out.
rapidskipper8 said:If it's possible, could someone please change my username? I accidentally missed the letter T, so it currently shows up as STUDEN, when I actually intended it to be "rapidskipper8". Thank you!
Understood. You should reach out to Tyndall.
I don't know, maybe the admin could look into why I've been shadowbanned for like five percent of the last few days? If it’s possible, could someone please fix this? It seems to be happening just because I used a capital "T."🙂
If it's possible, could someone please change my username? I accidentally missed the letter T, so it currently shows up as STUDEN, when I actually intended it to be "rapidskipper8". Thank you!
Understood. You should reach out to Tyndall.