The resonator won't stop

Sean Cooper65 said:The way they moderate the War subforum is a total joke. Honestly, it’s no different from the rest of this place. Even over in the History section, you’ve got lonetrucker4 hitting you with bans and then basically arguing with you in the same message where he won't even let you reply 🤣.

Nah, lonetrucker4 is actually being pretty polite when he sends those ban notices, explaining exactly why you got flagged. ☕

lonetrucker4 said:I’m going to take that as a joke—especially since you were already drawing maps that basically carved up Canada.

So finding the link isn't really an issue for you then, is it?

Sam Green73 said:
Writing:

How on earth did BlackShip drag someone into Pittsburgh?

It's written right here
it's just trolling

You’re calling that the first instance of trolling?! Look, the guy literally said he wouldn't even read the evidence for something he asked about in the first place because the scope didn't suit him—he's trolling half the thread with that attitude—and you're handing me a ban.
I suspect this is just because you're annoyed that I exposed your nonsense regarding people from the US Army being let go simply because they were Muslim. You tried to cite The Hague, completely oblivious to the fact that we are talking about the US Marines and the chain of command following June 30th—which, by the way, happened exactly the way it did, much like what I told the other user I was replying to.

As for this "dragging" accusation, it's a legitimate debate because the individual chose to side with the worm and everything else there. They are essentially siding with the Army, Alija, and everyone attempting to justify them.
So, what exactly am I being penalized for under the rules? Fine, let's say I accept those initial 30 points for the post, but then you hit me with an additional 30. That means I'm being punished twice for a single post. What, exactly, is the justification for those extra 30?

Drew Garcia6 said:Alright, let’s play this out. Let’s say I accept those first 30 points regarding the post in question, but you went ahead and slapped an extra 30 on top of that. That means I’m getting hit twice for the exact same thing. So, what's the deal with these extra 30?

It looks like the forum is glitching out and duplicating posts occasionally—including penalty cards.
I can see when the messages double up, but I don't usually go looking for the warning cards unless I get a notification about them.
I'm going to look into getting these duplicates cleared out.

Sorry for any unnecessary stress this caused.
If I had realized what was happening earlier, I would have jumped on fixing those duplicates right away.

Drew Garcia6 said:So, what exactly is that extra 30 for?

Due to some technical glitches, both cards were removed, so I just had to re-issue the card myself.

It’s not actually a new penalty or anything—just me cleaning up some technical details behind the scenes.

Anthony Nguyen81 said:So finding the link isn't the issue, right?

Nah, I could find it, I just won't. It's way too obvious. Maybe you just haven't caught on yet, but whatever.

lonetrucker4 said:No, but I won't—it's just too glaringly obvious. I'll concede that you might not be aware of it.

You're projecting.
I already made it clear earlier—expanding the US to include a few million people who have zero interest in being part of the same nation simply wouldn't make sense.
And I haven't once implied that the US should expand.
Surely one is allowed to comment on history and point out past mistakes—after all, history is the greatest teacher—without having to advocate for seizing everything from Tokyo to Milwaukee (just in a different local context).
Drawing a map is the easy part.

Besides, it really isn't that hard to do a quick Google search;
https://www.google.com/search?q=wiki...t=firefox-b-ab
https://www.google.com/search?client....0.gZnon1gHKas

https://www.google.com/search?client....0.nGokzVlgR6U

That’s beside the point (sorry for the tangent), but just so we're clear...

Drew Garcia6 said:The guy literally admitted he won't read the evidence for something he requested just because the scope bothers him. He's trolling half the thread, yet you're handing out bans.
P?

Are you honestly expecting me to dig through 250 pages of Canada Presidential Council meeting minutes—which, by the way, are highly "expertly" edited and packed with the author's own biases, much like a real historian would do—using a document that isn't even searchable? Is that really what you meant?