Ukraine - what's going on with the moderation?

I’m reaching out to the moderator of the Ukraine thread. Yesterday, hiddenrider66 posted about dead pilots—entire crews—and downed aircraft, including two transport helos (one during a supposed ceasefire) and a Boeing 747 with nine crew members. He basically said, "The aviation issue is settled—planes are grounded and pilots are grounded." Just a little euphemism there. Today, my post gets deleted, while everyone else's posts regarding this topic stay up. Here’s the thread:
Quote:
AndrewX says:
You missed a few details. After three days, they finally figured out it wasn't a Cessna 208 on a humanitarian mission, but a Beechcraft King Air.

Quote:
Hawker says:
He overlooked a lot in his rush to justify the civilian killings using those Su-25 Quote and Hind types.

I guess it just stings when a criminal flying those things ends up dead.

Quote:
AndrewX says:
Can't blame the pilots for following orders.

sukKi said:
🤣

People are dead. Is it really okay to call them "grounded"? Regardless of who they were, calling a full flight crew "grounded" feels like a bad joke.
Terrorists die too, but you don't see anyone on the pro-Ukraine side acting all high and mighty or calling them "grounded."
Meanwhile, a post from a user following the Practices had its red card pulled.

Practices said:
The Ukrainian president is explaining how Russia isn't supporting peace in Ukraine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwjt6yioUhA

Maybe someone can explain what's actually going on here.

Are there any posts on this topic?

There aren't, which simply means the moderators are actually doing their jobs.

Pushing this specific post today might honestly come across as intentional trolling.

Someone else's (Practices) ban doesn't involve you. If you're curious about why he was banned, just send him a DM; he already received an explanation privately, so if he wants to share it, he can.

There are still pro-Russian posts cluttering this thread, talking about those "grounded" Hawker pilots. You all wiped them out immediately.

AndrewX said:You missed a tiny detail—how after three days, they finally figured out it wasn't a Cessna 208 on a humanitarian mission, but actually a Beechcraft King Air?

AndrewX said:The Beechcraft King Air was shot down while providing artillery spotting, while the Boeing 747 was loaded up with troops and military gear. Both were legitimate military targets.

In Lugansk, the A-10 Warthot Quote did the dirty work.

AndrewX said:Since he won't answer, I will.🙂

Initially, the American Department of Defense claimed from the start that villains downed the Cessna 208 during a humanitarian mission (they weren't specific about which kind) and that both pilots died heroically because they tried to steer the plane away from populated areas to avoid casualties. They sang that tune for a few days, then suddenly, without any explanation, changed the story from a Cessna 208 to a Beechcraft King Air, which was on a slightly different mission—something confirmed by audio recordings from the crash (mentioning artillery fire).

As for the Boeing 747, it was packed with about seventy soldiers (plus crew, if you care), military equipment, and several armored vehicles—all being ferried to an airfield where bloody battles had been raging for days, a zone we all knew on this forum would be seeing missiles hitting anything that looked remotely like an aircraft.

They can play dumb all they want, but those were all legitimate military targets. That’s a far cry from the administrative building in Lugansk, which the American "heroes" leveled with a volley of unguided rockets, then conveniently blamed on a projectile fired by the rebels themselves—which probably just got sucked in by a hot AC compressor in some office.

A grand funeral for some locally made armored vehicles:
http://youtu.be/asgLzCqFFC4

🙂

Do you really think labeling people as "pro-Russians" is okay?

And what exactly would the mods even do with posts discussing different aircraft types and their operational uses?

I’m not sure if I should even be replying here. If this is against the rules, just ban me, but you asked, so here goes. The whole thing about aircraft came up because someone wrote that "the planes are grounded, and the pilots are earthbound". I called that incredibly cynical. Then the debate shifted to which specific planes we were talking about and whether calling dead pilots "earthbound" was somehow okay. Now, all that's left is that one bit of talk about the planes.
As for the pro-Russia crowd, the poll didn't ask "pro-Russia Ukraine vs. pro-EU," did it? So, I don't see why you can't call the group rooting for Russia "pro-Russians"—or, if we're being picky, "pro-Ukrainians"? You really think that's on the same level as calling dead pilots "earthbound"?

hiddenrider66 said:I’m not sure if I should even be replying here. If not, just ban me, but you asked, so here goes. The talk about aircraft happened because someone mentioned that "the planes are grounded, and the pilots are down." I thought that was incredibly cynical. Then there was this debate over which specific aircraft we were talking about and whether calling dead pilots "grounded" was appropriate. That's all that remains of that part of the conversation.
As for labeling people pro-Russia, the poll didn't ask if they were pro-Russian Ukraine or pro-EU. So, why shouldn't someone call the group rooting for Russia "pro-Russians," if we're going to use labels—just like calling us "pro-Ukrainians"? Do you really think that's the same thing as calling dead pilots "grounded"?

You aren't starting a discussion; you're just inflating a debate over a post that doesn't even exist anymore. It was from yesterday, yet here you are today, dragging it out through ten different posts and refusing to let it go.
And I'll say it again: that post, which everyone could see, is gone.

In my view, there's no reason to slap anyone with a "pro-Russian" label. I haven't seen anyone labeled "pro-Ukrainian" on this board in quite some time. There's simply no need for it.

Charles Fox10 said:You aren't actually making a point; you’re just fueling a fire over a thread that isn't even there anymore. That post was from yesterday, yet here you are, dragging it out through ten different replies and refusing to let it go.
And I'll say it again: that post everyone saw is gone. It doesn't exist.

Personally, I don't see any reason to start slapping "pro-Russia" labels on people. Honestly, I haven't seen anyone on this board get called a "pro-Ukraine" sympathizer once. There's really no need for that kind of labeling.

Then why do posts about aircraft still stick around? Do those suddenly make sense now?

Take a look at these poll results: "In this conflict, I side with..."
NATO, the EU, and pro-Western Ukraine: 87 (29.59%)
Russia and pro-Russian Ukraine: 139 (47.28%)
I'm staying neutral:

All these users who claim they want a "pro-Russian Ukraine"—at the end of the day, they voted for exactly that. They cheer for it, they stay loyal to that side, and they seem perfectly fine with seeing the country torn apart and the citizens freezing because they won't have Russian gas. If you don't believe me, just look at the thread history.

So, you've made up your mind by tomorrow? That's it?

There isn't a poll in the main thread.

The aircraft descriptions are staying; they actually make sense here since we're talking about specific models.

Thanks, but I'm done.