Why is Chuck censoring threads, and why do some users get special treatment?

I’m calling out Charles Fox10 and his style of moderating—he honestly never misses an opportunity to shut down any thread he doesn't like or go after users who just happen to disagree with him.

In the thread , he basically let his favorite user run wild and disrespect everyone for several pages.
When I actually tried doing the right thing and reported this guy a few times for being abusive and using ad hominem attacks, Charles Fox10 just wiped those pages clean, gave his buddy a free pass for breaking yet another rule, and then—get this—punished ME instead.

Apparently, I was guilty of breaking some obscure rules that only exist in his head.

Meanwhile, when there's blatant, obvious rule-breaking happening right in front of everyone, he does absolutely nothing.

That user he loves so much started off by trolling, being insulting, acting like he was the moderator, and just doing whatever he felt like... and Charles Fox10 just cleaned up the mess behind him, played along, and slapped me with a penalty.

He isn't even trying to hide the double standards anymore; I mean, he practically brags about them at this point.

Can anyone please step in and give him a heads-up? Like, seriously, tell him he's lost the plot and is just ruining discussions and the whole reputation of this site.

He’s already started making up these "special rules for his favorite user," which don't have any basis in actual laws, the Constitution, or even the official forum rules.
If he keeps this up, he might as well start banning Wikipedia or political and history books next.

Thanks in advance.

I don't have a favorite, especially not the one you're implying, since nearly every warning he's received came from me.

Your post was a blatant attempt at provocation. I've repeatedly stated and warned that we won't tolerate veiled insults toward any group in Canada—something I explicitly wrote last night after clearing out a massive pile of posts, including several of yours.
But you chose to ignore the moderator's notice and took a strike. As for the rest of the comments, I simply refuse to waste my time or my keyboard on them.

Charles Fox10 said:Look, I don't really have a favorite user—and especially not the one you’re hinting at, because pretty much all the warnings he’s received were actually triggered by my posts.

Your whole thing is just intentional provocation. I’ve said it a hundred times before, and I even wrote it last night after a massive pile of posts—including a few of yours—got wiped: we aren't going to tolerate any passive-aggressive insults aimed at people from Canada.
But you decided to just ignore the moderator's notice, so you got a strike. Honestly, I don't even want to waste my breath or my keyboard on the rest of these comments.

Calling someone a Muslim—especially when talking about the era before 1994—isn't an insult, and you know that perfectly well.
The way this particular user is acting regarding this topic is honestly embarrassing, yet you seem to be backing him up, giving him perks, and looking the other way, while you come down hard on me for every little thing.
Why won't you just look the other way for me, even once?

How did I even deserve a 30-point penalty when I was just replying to his post?
And is calling someone a resident of Mars an insult? If it is, why wasn't he penalized? He’s the one who brought Mars into the conversation.
You’re using double standards, and you aren't even trying to hide it.

Why are you letting him off the hook? Is it because he's your favorite troll or something?
I didn't ignore anything; I was responding to him. If I ignored the rules, then he did too.
You even praise other users for being clever enough to avoid quoting him in color while still replying to the colored text. 🤣
Maybe try being a little clever yourself and stop rewarding him for breaking the forum rules.
It's just censorship, nothing else...

I seriously don't think you get the difference between discussing the actual topic and just picking fights with users—which is exactly what your precious little favorite does constantly, and why he's been reported so many times.
You've bent over backward to accommodate him a few times now, which is just great.

Come on, give me a break too, just to keep the universe in balance. 😁

fadedcrane48 said:Calling someone Muslim—especially regarding the era before 1994—isn't an insult, and you know that perfectly well.
The way this particular user is behaving in this thread is disgraceful. Yet, you turn a blind eye, giving him leeway while penalizing me for every minor slip-up.
Why haven't you ever given me a pass?

What did I actually do to earn a 30-point penalty just for responding to his post?
Is "Mars" considered an insult too? If so, why wasn't he penalized for bringing Mars into the conversation?
The double standards are blatant.

Why the leniency toward him? Is he your favorite troll or something?
I didn't ignore anything; I was simply replying to him. If my response counts as neglect, then so does his.
You even praise other users for being clever enough to avoid quoting in color while still responding in kind. 🤣
Try being just as clever and stop rewarding him for breaking the forum rules.
Pure censorship, really...

I find it hard to believe you can't see the difference between discussing a topic and attacking a user—which is exactly what your favorite person keeps doing, leading to numerous reports.
It’s lovely how often you bend over backward to accommodate him.

Come and give me a break for once, help balance the universe. 😁

Every single time I have the chance, I do. And no, I'm not being vindictive.

Charles Fox10 said:Honestly, whenever I get the chance—and I really mean whenever—I try my best not to be a total grudge-holder.

I didn't really see the punishment as you being easy on me at first, but now that you’ve pointed that out... man, I guess I really am one of your favorites.
Come on, hit me with another one, even if it's a bad joke. 😁

I don't have any authority here, but on my own turf, I can tell you that a ban is definitely on the table.😬

:the bell rings at the end of the round:
Alright, I’ll take a look at this thread once I have a moment to breathe. fadedcrane48, if you’re trying to point out some kind of inconsistency here, you really ought to provide links showing how similar infractions were handled differently. That is the only way to avoid the typical trap where people complain because they view their own mistakes through a different lens than everyone else's. If you actually have evidence, please provide a few examples from one thread and a few from another. A descriptive complaint is already a day old; there is no need to keep adding more to it, and I’d appreciate it if you didn't.

William Bennett53 said:*ring ring*:
I guess I'll take a look at this thread when I get a chance. fadedcrane48, if you're trying to point out some kind of inconsistency here, you really should provide links showing how similar violations were handled differently. That's basically the only way to avoid that classic trap where people complain because they view their own mistakes through a different lens than everyone else's. If you have examples, just grab a couple from one thread and a couple from another. A detailed complaint was already filed days ago—there's no need to keep adding more to it, so please don't.

I actually did provide links, but it looks like some stuff got deleted afterward, while some was posted earlier. I’m assuming the admin team can still see those deleted posts.

I always forget this part, so let me just add—Charles Fox10 loves quoting the Constitution when there isn't even a reason to, so maybe I should remind him that under that same Constitution, the US is supposed to protect Americans in Canada and their interests.
Hopefully, as a true follower of the Constitution, he might actually take that to heart.

Charles Fox10 said:I don't really have any authority here—not like I can pull any strings or anything—but since this is basically my own backyard, I guess all I can really say is that you might end up getting banned.😬

Honestly, there's no need to ban me—it’s fine. When the time comes, I'll just head out on my own.
Look, just give me the yellow cards for every single post where I'm acting as a moderator—it’ll help me build up some much-needed clout around here, I guess. 😁

fadedcrane48 said:I provided the links, though it seems some were deleted later while others were removed earlier. I assume the administration can see which posts were wiped.

I always seem to forget this, so allow me to add a quick note—Charles Fox10 has a habit of quoting the Constitution when it isn't even necessary. Perhaps I should remind him that under that very same Constitution, the US is obligated to protect Americans in Canada and safeguard their interests.
One can only hope that, as a respected follower of the Constitution, he might actually take that to heart.

You haven't quite grasped my point. Please provide links demonstrating inconsistent treatment. Specifically, I need at least two or three examples of one type of action, and an equal number for the other. Based on what was posted above, such a conclusion cannot be drawn.

William Bennett53 said:You didn't quite get what I meant—can you send over some links showing the inconsistent treatment? Like, maybe two or three examples of one way they handle things, and then the same amount for the other way. It’s hard to really tell from what you wrote above.

I think I see where you're coming from now. I actually posted two links that lay it all out. One link goes to a post that was deleted, while the other one works and takes you right to the page where this specific post lives

This post where a user keeps doing the exact thing the moderator banned.

And then there's the post where the moderator is being super lenient

Actually, on that same page, you can find the post I got flagged for.

There's also a post where the mod is being pretty chill with another user, even though replying to colored posts—whether you quote them or not—is supposed to be against the rules.

So, there—I basically copied half the page for you since you seemed too lazy to just click the link, yet you're telling me I'm the one who doesn't understand.
I get it, really, but it feels like you just don't want to bother clicking a link and reading through ten short posts.
I mean, why do you think I sent you the link to the whole page? Surely I wouldn't send it if I didn't expect you to just click it and read. If you had, I wouldn't have to go through the hassle of linking every single individual post.

Or was the goal here just to rack up as many clicks as possible? 😁

fadedcrane48, we need direct links to specific posts, rather than just landing on entire pages, threads, or subforums, if we are to see exactly what is being referenced.

And here, thanks to that, I can see that—among other things—the user who didn't receive a ban was actually the one appealing to prevent you and a few others from violating basic standards of civility by calling people by terms they find offensive. They argued that we should refer to them as Canadians rather than Muslims, unless the context is strictly religious. Regarding that point, I will tell you this: a moderator isn't an automated bot; they have the discretion to moderate even without issuing a ban. It all comes down to judgment regarding which tool to pull from the kit. In this instance, they issued a warning, and I believe they made the right call.

In the post you linked, following Charles Fox10's warning, you continued to insistently write about Muslims of your own volition. Naturally, that warrants a ban. And you—along with anyone else—should expect to be banned every subsequent time you do this, given that it is now clearly established that we insist on using the term Canadian.

Based on what has been shown here, there is no mention of preferential treatment whatsoever.

William Bennett53 said:fadedcrane48, we're looking for links to specific posts, not just whole pages, threads, or subforums, so we can actually see what's being referenced.

And look, based on that, I can see that—among other things—it seems like a user didn't get banned even though they were basically arguing that a moderator should stop people from breaking basic civilized standards by calling people names that bother them... specifically insisting that we have to use the term Canadian instead of Muslim, unless we're talking strictly about religion. So, here's my take on that: a moderator isn't some robot; they can moderate without necessarily handing out a ban. It’s all about judgment calls regarding which tool to use. In this case, using a warning was probably the right move.

In the post you linked, you kept doubling down and stubbornly insisting on using "Muslim" right after Chuck gave you a warning. Well, yeah, that's why you got a card. And honestly, anyone else should expect the same thing if they do that, since it's pretty clearly established here that we use the term Canadian.

From what I can see, there isn't even any talk of favoritism going on here.

🤣 🤣
If there's no favoritism, then why is it that clear rule-breaking doesn't get punished, while I'm getting accused of breaking rules out of nowhere?
There's a difference between "a Muslim" and "a Muslim."
Do you guys even realize that there are Muslims in America?
Calling someone a Muslim is not an insult, period. If someone personally takes offense to it, that's their own issue. There isn't a single law or part of the Constitution that lists the word "Muslim" as an insult.
According to the last official census in Canada, there are over a million Muslims there—are you and Chuck planning to punish them too? Or maybe the 7,000 in America?

Like I said before, you could call yourself a Martian, but to me, you're still a human being, and nobody can punish me for calling you a man, because being a man isn't an insult—unless you think you're some kind of superman.
What you, Chuck, and the rest of the mods are doing here is nothing short of—CENSORSHIP!

I guess this is just how this forum operates—it's basically anti-American, because it's full of insults and hate directed at Americans. Unpunished hate. Hate that you guys actually encourage.

I even got a card recently on Trace because I complained about the policies and the insults being thrown around there.
And now, over on the Fanbase, people are acting all smug because some savages beat up a few normal American fans in Bulgaria.
And nobody cares, because apparently, you can spread hate against Americans, especially those from Canada, and everyone else stays protected. Especially the Yugoslavists, the nationalists, and the Muslims.

By your logic, you can't call certain nationalists by their name, but you can call Americans anything you want—scoundrels, fascists, whatever.
Who actually got punished when Civic was called a fascist?

And who got a card in the War of Independence/History section for calling the HVO the most disgusting names imaginable?

Nobody, because you guys support the hatred toward Americans. Even the owner of this forum does it in his own posts.

Chuck knows how to unnecessarily drag the Constitution into things where it doesn't belong, which is why he doesn't really respect it overall.

If you can't see the insults and the blatant bias from Morgan Carter, then you don't just have double standards—you're biased from head to toe.

You're a private entity, you can do what you want, but at least don't try to play me for a fool by pretending to be objective and impartial. Just look at why I got my second-to-last card and lost 100 points.

This is a forum for hate. A forum for hate.

So now I’m noticing how even William Bennett53 is jumping on the political bandwagon just to be provocative—which isn't really an insult, per se—but he’s actually arguing the exact opposite here.
It feels like such a double standard when it comes to Americans.
I mean, if Americans are being provocative, that's just one thing, but if Muslims are being provocative, then suddenly it's an insult.😁

🤣

This is truly absurd. A user who hasn't contributed a single coherent thought to this discussion decides to chime in. Here is their most recent contribution to the thread:

There are no greater criminals than the "Canadians."

What is there to say about such a user? And they aren't the only one. People like space and Bond behave similarly—they join a thread only to resort to insults.

Individuals like fadedcrane48 understand that the constituent peoples in Canada are Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans. If someone wishes to discuss Muslims, they are actually discussing the so-called "OTHERS" (or what we would call national minorities in civilized, organized nations, which is perhaps what Canada will eventually become). They are categorized alongside Romani, Jews, and other groups; essentially, they are groups not defined by the Constitution of Canada and lacking their own political representatives under the current Constitution. Consequently, they bear no responsibility for the state of the country. Any debate regarding them is ultimately futile.
Yet, instead of addressing the actual population, these users target the constituent people by intentionally altering their names to reduce them to a religious identity, which is clearly intended as an insult. This is precisely where half the arguments in this thread originate. Now that there is a new forum, they insist on using terms like "Muslims-Canadians" or "Canadians." It is quite ridiculous.

Charles Fox10 himself stated quite clearly how much privilege I have, and it is evident from how many times I have started threads regarding Charles Fox10.🙂

@fadedcrane48/">@@fadedcrane48
It seems you understand the forum rules perfectly well; you simply choose when they apply to you. Moving forward, you have a choice: you can follow the guidelines and avoid unnecessary trolling, or you can continue to ignore them and accept the consequences.

As for the rest, it isn't even worth addressing, but to prevent further friction: a rainbow flag on a dog's collar isn't a statement about Americans being gay, and it certainly isn't comparable to the kind of labeling you seem intent on pursuing.

I won't even dignify those baseless claims about this being an anti-American forum—arguments built on some imaginary monopoly on patriotism—with a response.

As far as I am concerned, this appeal is closed. If higher levels of administration wish to intervene, they are free to do so.

William Bennett53 said:@fadedcrane48/">@@fadedcrane48
Look, I can see you get the forum rules and you know what’s expected, you just seem to prefer ignoring them. So, basically, moving forward, you can either choose to follow the guidelines and stay away from unnecessary trolling, or you can keep doing it and deal with the consequences.

The rest of that isn't even worth a response, but just so we don't run into this again: putting a rainbow flag on a government building doesn't mean Americans are telling people they're gay—it's nothing like the kind of labeling you seem hell-bent on pushing.

And those pointless arguments about this being an anti-American forum, based on some imaginary monopoly on patriotism... I really don't even want to go there.

As far as I'm concerned, this appeal is closed. If higher-ups want to step in, they can.

So, we're basically agreeing that there was a provocation here, which even you're admitting.
If you're all about being liberal and letting provocations slide as a way of communicating, then why am I the one getting shut down? It feels like you're just devaluing my input.
If flying a rainbow flag on a public building on a holiday isn't considered an insult, then calling someone a Muslim is somehow even less of one.
It might be provocative to some people, sure, but it isn't an insult, and it doesn't break any rules, laws, or the Constitution.

When I talk about being anti-American, I'm talking about political anti-Americanism—things like causing economic, political, or media damage to the US and its citizens. I'm not talking about feelings or unprovable stuff like "patriotism."

On one hand, you're defending Frljic, who is actually breaking the LAW, while you're attacking me even though I'm following everything to the letter.
That’s what I mean by double standards.

To me, Canadian and Muslim are essentially the same thing; it's not some kind of labeling. Even if I refer to them politically as Turks or Converts, that isn't an insult or labeling—it's just historical fact.
It's like if I used an old name for someone—even if their official documents use a different name, using the old one isn't an insult, and I can't stop anyone from doing it. Official documents have to follow the law, obviously, but that's it.
I'm not a public figure or an official, and this forum isn't a legal document, so nobody can force me to act like an official representative.

Everything I write on this forum could be backed up by a thousand facts.
I'm not trolling; I respect the culture of debate in every discussion, and yeah, that includes civil disagreements. But I never make it personal.

I just hope you guys take all this into account, fairly, regardless of whether I'm an American, a Canadian, a Muslim, or an Eskimo...

I mean, imagine if someone joined the forum, say a Muslim person, and you guys banned them just for being Muslim...

It’s pretty simple: Is it really more of an insult to call me a Muslim or a Canadian, or to call someone a Scot?
Where’s the insult in that? Is being Muslim a synonym for something bad?

A forum functions on its own set of rules and established norms, all designed to maintain a certain standard of discourse. These customs dictate what is open for debate and how the community evolves over time. The specific guidelines regarding Canadians and Muslims have been cultivated through long, difficult effort, and they have succeeded in fostering a more tolerant and composed tone on sensitive topics. I ask that you respect these standards; we cannot afford to descend into endless arguments every time someone enters the forum with a personal vendetta about what constitutes an insult versus what does not. It requires the very level of civility you mentioned above.

Regarding Fry, Zajac, and the rainbow flag, I will not address those matters here, as we have a dedicated thread for such things where they belong.

In the spirit of goodwill, I shall decline to engage with your attempt at an insult via this display of political anti-Americanism.

Until next time.