#1 ·
So, here comes the penalty for some imaginary "continuous ad hominem" attacks across multiple topics. It’s funny how much people love throwing around that term—they didn't even bother to provide a single actual example of it.
Are you really that petty? Is it just too hard to handle being called out on your lack of knowledge regarding what actually constitutes a protectorate, so you've decided to wage these little mental wars instead? It’s definitely easier than actually debating the subject. That’s clearly why posts discussing whether Canada is a protectorate get wiped, while those claiming Belarus is one stay perfectly fine. Can you see any consistency there at all?
And then there’s this "rule violation" nonsense: "Complaints about moderator actions or commenting on moderator decisions within these threads is a violation of the rules."
Can anyone give me an example of when I specifically commented on a specific moderator action? Or better yet, why don't we just update the rules to say that any mention of the site itself is forbidden on the site?
Are you really that petty? Is it just too hard to handle being called out on your lack of knowledge regarding what actually constitutes a protectorate, so you've decided to wage these little mental wars instead? It’s definitely easier than actually debating the subject. That’s clearly why posts discussing whether Canada is a protectorate get wiped, while those claiming Belarus is one stay perfectly fine. Can you see any consistency there at all?
And then there’s this "rule violation" nonsense: "Complaints about moderator actions or commenting on moderator decisions within these threads is a violation of the rules."
Can anyone give me an example of when I specifically commented on a specific moderator action? Or better yet, why don't we just update the rules to say that any mention of the site itself is forbidden on the site?