I have a few questions

I find myself wondering, above all else, whether it is ever truly appropriate to celebrate when someone passes away—regardless of their political leanings or how others might perceive those views—even if it is just for those fleeting few days following a death, whether by natural causes, an accident, or suicide.

Take the passing of the Speaker of the House, Boris Šprem, for instance; even though I could have certainly put together a rather pointed argument regarding his flaws, the thought of doing so never even crossed my mind.
And that is precisely why I find myself in agreement with the moderator, Edge; before he passed, he offered a sentiment that truly resonated with me.

The entire article in USA Today is absolute nonsense, and frankly, I think the world would be a better place if people showed just a little more humanity. Even when dealing with politicians who hold an entirely different worldview, one finds that the patterns remain predictably unchanged.

I also find myself in agreement with the moderator, Closeau, who, on the day of the passing, felt compelled to reiterate...

Any snarky, cynical, or otherwise disrespectful remarks regarding the passing of Boris Šprem will be met with appropriate consequences.

Showing a modicum of respect is really just a matter of basic decency and having a shred of culture.If you feel the need to criticize Boris Šprem's work, there are plenty of other topics and threads where you can do so that aren't centered on his passing.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before we found ourselves staring down the barrel of this particular historical repetition. Looking back at how things unfolded during Operation Storm, one can't help but feel a sense of weary déjà vu regarding the political maneuvering that always seems to follow such massive shifts in the landscape.

I find myself wondering why anyone would bother paying respects to someone they fundamentally disagreed with, let alone someone who personally slighted me. I still remember when she signed that statement as a high-ranking official in Stjepan Mason’s office, using the cheapest possible political spins and blatant falsehoods to back up Mason's lies regarding Operation Maslenica. They had the audacity to claim we lost 185 people without gaining an inch of ground, all in a transparent attempt to smear General Ante Gotovina, who led that liberating military operation alongside General Ante Bobetko.
I could have easily countered that with a solid, reasoned argument, but I chose not to, primarily for the exact reasons Edge and Costea pointed out; I still possess a shred of basic decency and the kind of upbringing that teaches you when a conversation simply isn't worth the breath.

I've spent enough years watching the political machinery grind people down to realize that when high-level officials like Stjepan Mason start making noise, it’s rarely about justice and almost always about the next power play. It reminds me of those long, rainy afternoons back in D.C. when you'd sit in a dim cafe and watch the pundits dissect scandals that were already decided behind closed doors months prior. There's a certain exhaustion that comes with seeing the same patterns of blame and deflection repeat themselves through every administration.

My position remains unchanged, and if you follow the link within this one, you'll find another thread regarding the passing of Ivan Milas; it serves as a rather transparent demonstration of how differently the moderators handle the death of someone perceived as "leftist" versus someone viewed as "rightist."

I find myself wondering why, in a thread dedicated to the tragic passing of Zvone Bušić, there is such an unrestrained license for people to revel in someone's death—even when, as Edge so aptly put it, he was merely a "politician from a different world."

What exactly qualifies as "hate speech" these days? It seems like the goalposts move every single week.

Is it truly considered "hate speech" when someone openly mocks the death of others, or does that definition shift when someone like me decides to strike back at those who find joy in such tragedies?

And now we arrive at the inevitable red card—the one carrying a heavy 500-point penalty for "hate speech." It’s becoming quite the routine, isn't it?

I suppose it was only a matter of time before we started circling back to this particular mess, though I find myself wondering if anyone actually expects a different outcome this time around. It feels like watching a slow-motion train wreck where the passengers have already accepted their fate, sitting there quietly while the tracks vanish beneath them.

If I weren't being lied to right here, and if that person actually were me—even assuming I had intentionally written a post mocking someone's death—there's no way they would have slapped me with a 500-point penalty. In reality, they wouldn't even get a strike at all; and even if they did, it would have been a mere 35 or 45 points for trolling or insulting a fellow user.
I could easily drop twenty more posts right here where people launch these vitriolic attacks against me—not because I’m celebrating some passing, which is something I simply refuse to do, but because I’m busy dismantling lies and debunking myths using credible sources, hard evidence, and direct links. It’s a wearying cycle, watching those efforts receive absolutely zero recognition, let alone the 500 points they deserve.

I don't subscribe to the notion that there's some biased moderation team working overtime to push a "leftist" agenda while cracking down on the "right," nor do I believe I’ve racked up 500 points here because of such a bias. My refusal to recognize the term "hate speech" isn't an act of defiance for its own sake; rather, I view it as a convenient euphemism used to criminalize speech when one simply lacks the intellectual capacity to counter an argument—a sentiment I recall Powerlock once expressed quite poignantly when noting that hate, much like love, is a fundamental human emotion that can be interpreted in infinite ways, yet shouldn't be treated as a legal offense. For that same reason, I have never accepted being labeled a "right-winger," regardless of how many people try to pin that identity on me, as it says more about their own perceptions than it does about my actual convictions.
To make matters worse, not even seven days ago, I found myself facing yet another ban for "hate speech," all because I decided to take a sharp, necessary aim at the right wing.

Let’s be honest: I suppose I should just own up to the fact that my previous card was handed out without me ever asking for it to be rebranded as "crude trolling." I can readily admit that I’ve earned every bit of it here—all five hundred points, for that matter—simply because I knowingly stepped outside the forum's rules. Much like my last post where I was slapped with 500 points for "hate speech," everything I wrote remains true, save for one single point from my earlier thread regarding Karamarko, which I simply cannot substantiate, so I’ll concede that particular part.

If you think Pizvo is just some bottom-tier troll who spends his days glorifying everything negative about our society—or suggesting we purge such elements from politics, business, the media, and even this forum (and I certainly wasn't implying anything violent)—then you’ve missed the mark entirely. From where I’m sitting, it feels like the opposite is true: it seems like you all are actually trying to get rid of me. Everything I wrote in that previous post was simply directed at Pizvo. You’re nothing more than a demagogue who has mastered the dark art of intelligence agency inversion, and now you spend your days on this forum relentlessly lying, planting falsehoods, and spinning fabrications. I could prove my point using any single post from my history, though I would much prefer to settle it right here, through this one alone.

It is a peculiar kind of theater where one defends the indefensible, weaving together at least seven massive lies, inversions, and fabricated terms—all of which could be dismantled using twenty-five distinct connections to various sources. I find myself pointing to this specific post as a perfect specimen of the modus operandi seen around here; it’s just one more instance of someone who simply couldn't keep the venom off their tongue, failing even the basic decency of waiting until a man is laid to rest before turning on his memory.

I have never considered myself a leftist or a right-winger; I am simply someone who finds a quiet satisfaction in dismantling myths and delusions, whether they originate from the left or the right. On that note, if I may be so bold, I would love the opportunity to use some actual evidence and logical connections to deconstruct a certain figure often hailed as an icon of the American right—Ljubo Česić Rojs. To me, he represents a profound kind of political illiteracy, the sort that fuels unnecessary tensions in places like El Paso, ultimately leaving both the people and the nation to suffer the consequences. I suppose I could also use this as a chance to offer a basic primer on how the American political system actually functions, a subject that at least 80% of the population—not just those on this forum—clearly lacks even a fundamental understanding of.

Looking back at the discussions surrounding the trials in The Hague regarding Operation Storm, there were three primary threads that dominated the conversation: first, the defense of our generals, then the period of those invalid verdicts, and finally, the transition from discussing final judgments to the eventual acquittal of Generals Ante Gotovina and Ante Gotovina—essentially moving from individual cases to a collective focus on their exoneration. I also find myself wondering why, given that there are at least five separate threads covering the enforcement of EU mandates and the Perković legislation, we haven't simply consolidated them into a single, comprehensive topic like "Perković Legislation - General Overview."
The initial thread regarding the trial of the generals managed to pull in over 100,000 views.
That other thread managed to pull in over 250,000 views.
The third thread managed to pull in over 450,000 views.

Or, just flip to the front page of the Politics PDF:

You’ll eventually notice that the thread garnering the most views is always the one centered on the trial of those six Americans from Canada.

I suppose you can judge for yourselves just how much I’ve actually contributed to these discussions—and without any false modesty, I’d say my reasoning has held its own—at least until people start resorting to provocations, insults, and trolling. It seems that once someone realizes they can't actually dismantle my arguments with logic, they simply pivot to those cheaper tactics.
Either you decide that I’m someone lacking any real substance—just another user here peddling what you call "hate speech"—or you can simply issue a permanent ban or politely ask me to stop posting altogether; if it comes to that, I won't bother showing up again.
It’s really that simple.

Let me be perfectly clear about one thing: I am not appealing this ban. In fact, I’d prefer to keep it, as a fitting tribute to whoever decided to hand it to me in the first place. What I actually want is a straight answer to a few specific questions:

1. Does this forum permit the disparagement of the deceased—whether they passed away naturally, were killed, or took their own life—before they have even been laid to rest, regardless of their political leanings or ideology?

2. Am I actually allowed to participate here at all? It seems my primary handicap is that I don't belong to any faction; I'm not a member of a political party or some special interest group. Because I’ve secured the freedom to speak without being tethered to a side, I find myself able to call out lies whether they come from the left or the right. Is that an issue?

3. How do you intend to handle situations where, for instance, I discuss a topic related to The Hague and present an undeniable fact backed by an official link to the court's website, only to have someone dismiss me with a flimsy article from Time Magazine or a lower-tier publication, while simultaneously insulting my intelligence?

4. Will I be permitted to expose the falsehoods of the user whose posts led to my recent penalty? The situation arose because I stated I would no longer be posting here, which triggered a wave of misinformation regarding the Varivoda matter. If I cannot prove at least seven significant lies within that post, I will accept an immediate permanent ban. To be clear, I am prepared to provide no fewer than 25 links to various credible sources specifically to debunk the lies in that thread.

5. Why aren't all the discussions surrounding the European Union arrest warrants and the legislation colloquially known as the Lex-Perković consolidated into a single, comprehensive thread titled something like "The Lex-Perković Omnibus"?

Since none of you seem inclined to offer a response, I’ll just keep scribbling away here so I don't feel like my time is being entirely wasted; feel free to delete my posts or issue a ban if my presence bothers you too much.

1. This is roughly how a colleague put it:

Any snarky, cynical, or similar remarks regarding the passing of Boris Šprem will be appropriately "rewarded."

2. Obviously, you can say what you want; nobody's going to stop you.

3. If we see it or if someone reports it, we’ll step in.

4. If you're planning on turning this into an Ad Hominem debate, don't bother. But if you have other ideas within the current threads, that's fine.

5. Interesting, considering I just did exactly that.

So, here you go—take a good look and decide for yourselves who’s actually lying, who’s just trolling, and who’s actually bringing something real to the table.

It doesn't much matter in the end; I don't plan on sticking around this forum for much longer anyway. Honestly, I’m just exhausted by the constant attempts at provocation from people whose grasp of logic wouldn't pass a middle school exam, let alone hold up against my own arguments. It’s wearying to watch them lash out without any consequence, only to have the moderators swoop in with "excessive shelling" the moment I finally lose my patience and give them a taste of their own medicine.

I suppose all I need to ask is what you actually want from this space: do you want the kind of reasoned discourse I try to provide, or do you prefer the trolls who attack everything except the actual points being made? Do you want a forum built on substantiated debate where every claim is backed by a link or a source, or would you rather have a glorified chat room filled with baseless claims and zero accountability?

Look, I have no interest in picking fights with anyone, but I do expect some level of protection when I’m the one being targeted. If the moderation actually worked to protect everyone equally, I wouldn't be forced to take matters into my own hands, nor would I find myself getting penalized for the exact same behavior that others get away with every single day.

Just weigh up whatever serves your interests best and let me know...

Carol Torres4, look, you've been around this forum for a long time. 😉
Don't let them get under your skin. Some people are just looking for a reaction so they can get you banned. You know how the game is played here. No trolling, no insults, and definitely no threats. If someone says something that bothers you, just report it. And if the mods don't take action, start a thread right here so everyone can see what's going on. 😉

Look, I’m not looking to go after anyone, but I am asking for protection when I'm being targeted. If you guys step up to protect me, I won't have to take matters into my own hands—and I won't keep getting slapped with 500-point penalties for the exact same things others get away with without any consequences.

But... if what you're saying is true and you're constantly losing 500 points while others face zero consequences for "the same things" (??), then there are really only two conclusions: either the moderators are catastrophically incompetent and incredibly biased, or you're being overly subjective about how much weight your posts actually carry.

Since the first option doesn't really hold water logically, we're left with the second.

Besides, in your opening post, you suggest not even appealing that 500-point penalty (is that because you think you earned it?). That just leads right back to the same conclusion, lol.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:Honestly, if you don't know what Pizvo is about—just ignore them. Seriously, why even bother?

Or you could just debunk them with actual arguments, if anyone even has the time or the will.

Is it better to just feed someone 500 points at a time because they’ve already decided you're a "troll"? If you truly believe someone is just trolling, why even bother wasting your energy on the debate? Or are you just looking for moderator protection to shield your own bizarre reactions to them? I'm not saying the user is actually a troll—I'm saying the thread starter claims they are, and they seem pretty convinced of it.

Please. I haven't seen this one before, but...

Charles Fox10 said:1. This is roughly how a colleague put it:

Any snarky, cynical, or similar remarks regarding the passing of Boris Šprem will be appropriately "rewarded."

2. Obviously, you can say what you want; nobody's going to stop you.

3. If we see it or if someone reports it, we’ll step in.

4. If you're planning on turning this into an Ad Hominem debate, don't bother. But if you have other ideas within the current threads, that's fine.

5. Interesting, considering I just did exactly that.

Here’s an example that hits close to home.
I’m standing my ground that Vladimir Šeks never actually used the word "locate"—and I have the link to prove he said "uncover" instead—yet people insist on misattributing the quote to him.

A few posts later, some guy jumps in, recycles my own link, and tries to lecture me on why my conclusion is wrong, treating me like some sort of amateur.

Honestly, you could probably hand this user ten points for off-topic spam before even finishing the first paragraph; his entire purpose seems to be derailing conversations.
Beyond that, he’s a textbook troll who hasn't contributed a single constructive thought to this board. He relies entirely on the "argument from weak authority," constantly pivoting to insults—calling me ignorant or a fool—or using that weirdly condescending tactic of calling me his "friend," which is just another layer of provocation.
It's absurd. If I were to tell him that I'm certainly not his friend, but that I used to be quite close with his mother, and if he chooses to call us friends based on that, fine—but if I categorize people like him as either family or enemies, would I really face disciplinary action for it?

Just look at my recent threads; he always retreats to those flimsy arguments, inevitably ending with an insult or a jab.

Anyway, decide what's most efficient here and let me know. I'm going to go watch a volleyball match...

Here are a few more examples of posts that aren't just cardboard cutouts, even though it's pretty obvious what's actually going on here.
I suppose I should have expected this kind of predictable reaction from someone like Charles Fox10, given how predictably the pieces always fall into place once you look closely at the history. It’s almost wearying to watch the same old arguments resurface, much like seeing an old, familiar shadow stretch across a room just when you thought the light had finally changed.

Could you please send over the link to your writing? It seems to me that these claims aren't just inaccurate, they're bordering on pure paranoia.
You already had that thread about Stjepan Mason, where you clearly demonstrated what you're made of. A snitch, a sycophant, and a provocateur. It’s much the same situation here.

Are we really going to dwell on these "insinuations"? It all happens in the same post:

I find myself wondering how you can possibly maintain any sense of dignity, knowing full well that people are reading this. Those who actually know the truth about your identity usually don't bother asking.

I consistently find myself being handed red cards for saying things like this, all under the guise of preventing "insinuation."

Aside from that, this post contains the following:

Don't go overestimating yourself; the road to actually becoming something is much longer than you think. Carol Torres4 is quite foolish.

I would like to request that the moderators take a more "public" approach to monitoring certain "friends" on this forum—individuals who spend their entire time peddling lies and half-truths, effectively stifling any chance of actual debate. They tend to push everyone toward extreme positions by constantly manipulating the conversation with their baseless claims.
Just a provocateur and someone who clearly hasn't done their homework..

Charles Fox10 Carol Torres4 said:That’s more or less how my colleague put it.

That response of yours feels incredibly thin. What I actually relayed to you from your colleagues was regarding the specific location where Boris Šprem passed away.

I can't help but wonder what the deal is with Ivan Milas.

I suppose I should have expected this kind of predictable maneuvering from the usual suspects. It feels like watching the same tired political drama play out on a loop, where everyone knows the script but pretends to be surprised by the twists. One can't help but feel a certain weariness when you realize how little actually changes behind the scenes of our national discourse.

I can't help but wonder what exactly is going on with Smiljko Šagolj lately.

I've been sitting here thinking about how much history repeats itself, especially when you look at the way people still argue over the legacy of the old guard. It’s a bit like watching a rerun of a political drama that everyone thought was canceled years ago, yet here we are, still dissecting the same tired grievances and legal battles. I remember sitting in a small café back in the day, listening to men twice my age debate the exact same nuances of military orders and courtroom dramas, realizing then that some wounds never truly scab over; they just become part of the landscape. There's a certain exhaustion that comes with watching the same names—like Ante Gotovina or Tihomir Blaškić—be dragged through the mud by different generations of pundits, all while pretending they're uncovering something new. It feels less like progress and more like a slow, rhythmic circling of the drain.

And finally, what is the current status regarding Zvone Bušić?

Is it really acceptable to label someone a "terrorist," a "war instigator," or some other derogatory term just because they happened to be the reason this entire thread was opened following their passing?

Is anyone around? I find myself wondering where the line actually sits regarding hate speech—is it defined by someone gloating over a death, or does it become hate speech when you call them out for that exact behavior? It feels like my words are constantly being twisted; when I say "we need to get rid of them," people project their own darkest intentions onto me. When I used the word "resolve," I meant removing them from the media cycle or pushing them to the sidelines of politics, not anything as visceral as violence. I wasn't thinking of the things my grandfather told me about what my uncle did during his time in the military intelligence services—stories so grim they effectively severed him from our entire family. My grandfather was a veteran himself, but he never crossed those lines. Then there was my other uncle, who joined the extremist youth movements, and his older brother actually intended to kill him for it. My grandfather, despite everything, stepped in and managed to get him safely to Germany just in time. He had this way of sensing how things would play out before they even happened, which allowed my younger uncle to slip across the border well before the main forces began their retreat toward Austria.

So, what exactly qualifies as "hate speech" these days? Does it mean we aren't allowed to speak our minds or even use harsh language about someone who has just passed away? It seems there is a growing demand for a single, narrow narrative, where anyone holding a different perspective—for instance, those who refuse to label Zvone Bušić a terrorist—is immediately cast aside. The history isn't nearly as black and white as certain people would have us believe. Take the case of Smiljko Šagolj; his efforts to expose the atrocities committed against Americans were branded as war incitement. It leads one to wonder if he was expected to simply stay silent about those crimes just to be considered an "objective reporter" instead of a provocateur.

To me, the true terrorism lies in that written statement signed by Goran Šprem, which served only to justify Stjepan Mason's shameful lie regarding Operation Maslenica; that weighs far heavier on my conscience than Zvone Bušić hijacking an airplane. It seems you all struggle to grasp the essence of democracy—the simple fact that I am entitled to hold this perspective, regardless of whether you find it erroneous. Even if my view is flawed, it remains mine, and frankly, I found that statement—which has somehow vanished from the internet, by the way—far more offensive than the actions of Zvone Bušić, whom, interestingly enough, some individuals from that hijacked plane actually visited in prison, according to Jadranka Jureško-Kero in today’s print edition of USA Today.

Is anyone even home?

Does anyone here actually comprehend what I am discussing or what I am asking you?

granitefalcon26 said:Carol Torres4, look, you've been around this forum for a long time. 😉
Don't let them get under your skin. Some people are just looking for a reaction so they can get you banned. You know how the game is played here. No trolling, no insults, and definitely no threats. If someone says something that bothers you, just report it. And if the mods don't take action, start a thread right here so everyone can see what's going on. 😉

That’s fine, and it’s a perfectly legitimate tactic, but it shouldn't be acceptable for someone to repeatedly hurl things at me—like the nonsense I posted above—calling me an ignoramus, a provocateur, a fool, a partisan hack, or a smear artist, all while offering arguments far weaker than my own.

It's unacceptable that we discuss the Fall of Posavina, where I present a contemporary document complete with a class number, official seal, and the signature of the CIA Chief, Josip Perković, only to be countered by someone citing a snippet from Time Magazine, quoting a man responsible for the Fall of Posavina who has every reason to lie and shift his blame onto others. It's a lower tier of argument, wrapped in a layer of cheap provocations and mindless trolling.
Then, when I report those three posts above, nothing happens. But if I strike back in kind, the sanctions are immediate. Meanwhile, those original posts stay up without any consequence. If I were to call someone an idiot directly—a simple Ad Hominem—there’s no chance it wouldn't result in 45 points being docked for "insulting a forum member."

And this all stems from some perception that I’m a right-winger, even though anyone who has actually followed my writing can see that I spend most of my time tearing apart the extreme right. Nothing gets to me quite like the sheer volume of political illiteracy, particularly within right-wing circles.
I maintain that the right is intellectually inferior to the left, but it irritates me when they have a valid point yet find themselves powerless because the left always outmaneuvers them in debate. In those moments, I almost feel for them, so I tell them: "this is how you should handle it." That’s really what I do most on this forum, and from that, someone concluded I’m a conservative. I’m not. My political stance sits somewhere between the ideals of Franjo Harmon and Stjepan Radić—a centrist position aiming to unite all healthy, rational, and moderate forces. I want us to work toward the betterment of the Homeland, pulling ourselves out of disgrace and building an America where every human being can live a satisfied life, all while minimizing the influence of both the extreme left and the extreme right. That is achievable by strengthening the center—both left and right—through education and encouraging people to pick up a book instead of commenting on things they clearly don't understand, convinced they are experts.
I enjoy dismantling myths. For instance, that myth about "identify, locate, arrest, and transfer," where I proved that the word "locate" wasn't even used in that context.

That seems to be what gets under people's skin the most—when they take something as an absolute truth, whether they are on the left or the right, and I step in to shatter that illusion. I like diving beneath the surface, something some refuse to do and most are incapable of doing. I suspect that is why I struggle on this forum, not because of some ideological leaning that no one can truly pin down anyway; after all, the way I think politically won't be mainstream here for another 50 or 100 years. It's a perspective I inherited from my grandfather, a veteran of the resistance...

The system works through moderator oversight and user reports; that’s just how it is. You’re digging up posts from 2011—which doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but dragging them out here in 2013 to claim you're being unfairly insulted, while labeling others as provocateurs or ignorant, simply isn't a good look.

And who exactly is being accused of "locating" you or Vladimir Šeks? He said he wanted to "uncover" things; is the issue really with his wording or the actual meaning behind it?

I’ve never done a formal analysis, but I’d venture to say that on days when the Politics PDF sees over 1,000 posts on dozens of topics, expecting perfection is a tall order. If a post rubs you the wrong way, just report it. Once 24 hours have passed, reach out to one of us via PM to ask about it, and you’ll surely get a solid answer.

Charles Fox10 said:The system works through moderator oversight and user reports; that’s just how it is. You’re digging up posts from 2011—which doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but dragging them out here in 2013 to claim you're being unfairly insulted, while labeling others as provocateurs or ignorant, simply isn't a good look.

And who exactly is being accused of "locating" you or Vladimir Šeks? He said he wanted to "uncover" things; is the issue really with his wording or the actual meaning behind it?

I’ve never done a formal analysis, but I’d venture to say that on days when the Politics PDF sees over 1,000 posts on dozens of topics, expecting perfection is a tall order. If a post rubs you the wrong way, just report it. Once 24 hours have passed, reach out to one of us via PM to ask about it, and you’ll surely get a solid answer.

The truth is, you mods just make arbitrary calls based on your own political biases and personal agendas.

Carol Torres4 is a guy who has written a massive amount of legendary posts here; he’s basically the soul of this forum. You hate him because he writes with actual arguments and you can't beat him on facts. So instead, you let your ideological lapdogs provoke him until he uses one specific phrase in the heat of battle, and then—BAM—you ban him with everything you've got.

It’s been proven countless times that you're biased and that your moderation is unfair. It's been proven that you're willing to lie. Everything has been proven. But nothing changes because the same crew has been running the politics section for years. It's a clique that knows exactly how to eliminate anyone they don't like using tried and true methods.

In an era where a single mayoral candidate can have a troll office staffed by six college students dedicated to trolling forums, I find it hard to believe that the biggest forum in the country is completely independent. I don't believe political parties aren't watching these threads. Honestly? I suspect some mods might even be on a payroll—not necessarily from Under Armour, but at least driven by pure ideology.

Carol Torres4 is giving you a very simple litmus test for your moderation. Swap out Zvone Bušić or Boris Šprem in the text and ask yourselves: would you ban them?

Swap out a conservative family rights activist getting slapped in the face by a post celebrating a gay activist, and tell me: would you delete that too?

But no, you'll just keep banning and deleting based solely on your beliefs. For certain people, there will only ever be one thread (if you can even find one specific blunder among all the trash and trolling), while for everyone else, there are seven different open discussions...

And yeah, if you lose Carol Torres4, you’re idiots. His contribution to this place is huge—so huge you should probably be paying him. I honestly think the guy practically dismantled the UZP in The Hague with his posts...

That post really deserved a permanent ban from the mods... it was just honestly terrible...

quietdrifter3 said:That post really deserved a permanent ban from the mods... it was just honestly terrible...

And what about the clones of those permabanned users? They should get the boot too, but nobody says a word—especially when they aren't on the right. 😉

Who are we even talking about? If you mean... look, I’ve gone through hundreds of packs of cigarettes, but I’ve never folded, even when things got heavy. And honestly, I didn't cry when Carol Torres4 disappeared, nor will I when they inevitably take another temporary hiatus... Now, I know this is a right-leaning forum, but that’s less about how the mods run things and more about just who hangs out here... which is why I enjoy the fraying edges of the debate so much, it feels like a fair fight, even if it gets a bit ironic or cynical from time to time. Most people would have been slapped with a permanent ban for a post like his. Plus, constantly bragging about his own achievements or hunting for quick clicks doesn't exactly scream "genius"... We've all stirred up a little controversy and invited some heat now and then, haven't we?

Charles Fox10 said:The system works through moderator oversight and user reports; that’s just how it is. You’re digging up posts from 2011—which doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but dragging them out here in 2013 to claim you're being unfairly insulted, while labeling others as provocateurs or ignorant, simply isn't a good look.

And who exactly is being accused of "locating" you or Vladimir Šeks? He said he wanted to "uncover" things; is the issue really with his wording or the actual meaning behind it?

I’ve never done a formal analysis, but I’d venture to say that on days when the Politics PDF sees over 1,000 posts on dozens of topics, expecting perfection is a tall order. If a post rubs you the wrong way, just report it. Once 24 hours have passed, reach out to one of us via PM to ask about it, and you’ll surely get a solid answer.

But does it count if those 2011 posts were actually reported back in 2011?
For instance, I reported these three specific posts back then, and absolutely nothing came of it.
So, I decided to bring it up on the main board.

And guess who gave me the response?

Meanwhile, this individual ended up getting banned for something else entirely, and you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was somehow breaking rules by linking to posts from banned users.
That was the end of it. And no, I’m not going to start digging up all the grievances I collected while I was under a ban myself.

It seems I can't even get an answer to the most fundamental question here, which is really the heart of the matter: is it acceptable to insult the deceased, regardless of their political leanings?

Paul Green31 said:And what about the clones of those permabanned users? They should get the boot too, but nobody says a word—especially when they aren't on the right. 😉

He’s managed to spawn at least five clones on this forum by now, yet nothing can save him from that final, binding verdict from The Hague; honestly, given how much he thrived on provocation and playing the victim after the initial ruling, the mods should have banned him and his entire network of imitators a long time ago.
I'll just move that to the ignore list; honestly, people like him actually do us a favor in the long run. I find myself much more interested in those who possess actual intelligence and cunning, rather than the ones who, lacking any real capacity for argumentation, simply resort to the same tired attempts at provocation—though I suspect they’ll find that tactic increasingly difficult to pull off from now on.

Carol Torres4 said:But does it count if those 2011 posts were actually reported back in 2011?
For instance, I reported these three specific posts back then, and absolutely nothing came of it.
So, I decided to bring it up on the main board.

And guess who gave me the response?

Meanwhile, this individual ended up getting banned for something else entirely, and you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was somehow breaking rules by linking to posts from banned users.
That was the end of it. And no, I’m not going to start digging up all the grievances I collected while I was under a ban myself.

It seems I can't even get an answer to the most fundamental question here, which is really the heart of the matter: is it acceptable to insult the deceased, regardless of their political leanings?

Your archives are impressive. To give you a proper answer, I'd have to dig through old records I don't keep—since that isn't my habit—so I'll stick to what I already wrote.

You have your answer to the question; whether you're satisfied with it is another matter entirely.