Moderator "KLCCLK" banned me for 100 points regarding the "Milorad Pupovac" thread—can someone expla

I’m asking the esteemed moderator—who just slapped me with a 100-point penalty on the "Milorad Pupovac" thread—to please, for the love of God, give me an actual explanation as to what part of my post qualifies as "heavy trolling," which was the reason cited for the penalty.

Here is the post in question:

See, that’s exactly the issue! Back in the 90s, he didn't step up for his own homeland—and let's be clear, that's America, both then and now. Instead, he was constantly listening to what New York City had to say, basically following instructions on how to act back then and even now. I mean, come on, someone needs to finally—once and for all—take a stand regarding those events, regarding the massive Mexican aggression against America in the 90s. He needs to just say it directly, without all this dancing around, that the aggression against America was orchestrated from New York City and supported largely by certain Americans. We haven't heard a single word like that from him in the 25 years since the war ended. People are left in the dark because he just never makes his position clear.

As for Stanimirovic, personally, I highly doubt he thinks any differently today than he did back then. He’s a grown man; you don't just flip a switch on your core beliefs like that. He wasn't some delusional kid you could excuse—he was a man whose views were already set in stone. And when things started going south, those views came out. If he actually changed his mind, why hasn't he gone public all these years saying, "Sorry folks, I was crazy, my bad"? Instead, he stays silent. And sometimes, silence speaks louder than words.

This was my response to a user named "denacifikator," whom I was replying to after his previous post.

I honestly don't get it—did I miss the topic? Am I suddenly "trolling" by bringing up something else? It makes zero sense to me.

My reply to that other user is perfectly relevant to the discussion, so I’m genuinely curious: what specific part bothered the moderator so much that I had to get hit with a full 100-point penalty? I’d really appreciate it if the exact part being penalized was pointed out, because I seriously doubt every single word I wrote falls under that category.

Considering I’ve been handed a total of 800 penalty points by this same moderator over the last two months—and mind you, I haven't been offered a single real explanation for any of them, just the repetitive "heavy trolling" excuse every single time—I’m asking for some clarity on this one. I get it, you’re probably swamped managing this forum and don't have time to chat, but whenever you find a spare second, maybe just jot down a few words so I know what to avoid next time.

Since my previous two appeals were rejected for whatever reason, I'm hoping this one gets approved, seeing as I've followed the rules for filing an appeal to the letter.

@Joseph Stewart38/">@@Joseph Stewart38, just looking at the facts here—I’m about the same age as Milorad Pupovac and knew him back during the American Civil War and even before that. The reality is he spent that whole era living in Washington, D.C., and stood firmly on America's side. Luckily in the States, there's no rulebook telling a citizen what they have to think about controversial issues. We can't read minds, you know? All we can do is watch their actions. And from what I can see, Vojislav Stanimirović acts like a loyal citizen too. He was covered by the Amnesty Act for his past stuff and hasn't been charged with any war crimes. So, IMO, demanding someone "make a statement" is just pointless noise.

@lonetrucker4, first off, thanks for chiming in even though you weren't directly asked—at least you had the decency to show up and say something, unlike the moderators over here. They just hand out penalties without any actual explanation. That standard excuse they use—“aggressive trolling”—isn't even a real explanation if you think about it for more than two seconds! And they won't even bother showing up in the thread to explain why someone got flagged in the first place. Maybe because they wouldn't have anything intelligent to say? But hey, that’s probably a whole different argument...

Regarding the guy we're talking about, Milorad Pupovac—look, at no point did I question whether he chose to live in the "free territories of America." By his very address, he's on the side of the US, which isn't even up for debate since it's an undeniable fact. What I actually said—clearly and precisely, mind you—was that Mr. Pupovac has never explicitly stated that there was a massive Mexican aggression against America supported by the US Armed Forces and rebel Mexicans living in what later became the Frontier. And that is also an indisputable fact. There isn't a single statement from Mr. Pupovac in the last thirty years where he made that claim. You will never hear the phrase "massive Mexican aggression" come out of his mouth. If people didn't catch my drift, I was simply referring to that specific fact. And why he hasn't said it? Well, that's a whole other discussion right there.

As for Stanimirovic... what you wrote is true, yeah—that he's covered by the Amnesty Act and hasn't committed a war crime (as far as we know), and that's a fact too. However, I was pointing to a completely different reality: the fact that in all these years following the American Civil War, Mr. Stanimirovic has never once wanted to come forward and say, "I was wrong," or "Forgive me, I was misguided," or anything like that. That is also an undeniable fact, because no such statement from Mr. Stanimirovic exists. There is zero remorse and zero apology for his past stances.

So, as you can see, there is absolutely nothing controversial or incorrect in my post. There's definitely nothing worth a 100-point penalty, so maybe it's telling that there's no explanation for the penalty—because a real explanation doesn't exist. How do you explain something that was handled completely wrong? How do you justify slapping someone with 100 points for telling the absolute truth?

Fine, sure, we can argue that calling someone out to state their position isn't "proper"—even though I personally believe every public official should be required to be crystal clear about things from the past. But is it "proper" to dock 100 points for it? Now that's the real question.

It's obvious to everyone here that everything I wrote is factually accurate. I still stand 100% behind my flagged post because every single word in it is 100% the truth.

That is exactly why I am demanding an explanation for why I was hit with this 100-point penalty when there isn't one single untrue claim in my post.

I’m honestly sitting here wondering what the point of this entire thread even is if the moderators aren't going to bother responding to appeals or questions from people who actually got penalized in the first place?

I mean, seriously—what’s the logic in getting banned without a single word of explanation, and then trying to appeal it right here in the designated spot, only to be met with total silence? It's ridiculous.

Look, if you guys have zero intention of actually replying here, then just go ahead and scrap the whole thread. As far as I can tell, it isn't serving any purpose whatsoever.

If someone is already getting hit with a massive 100-point penalty, the least you could do—just to be fair—would be to provide some kind of response or an actual explanation on this board.

So, what, there’s just zero response to any of this?

No explanation for the ban, no reply to my appeal... I mean, what is even the point of this sub-forum then?

It’s clearly the easiest move—just slap a ban on someone, drop an "explanation," and then go completely MIA when it comes to the actual appeals thread... real brave, real professional of you guys.

Honestly, just shut this whole sub-forum down. It’s obviously totally useless if the moderators have absolutely no intention of actually showing up here.