Unfair moderation/Power tripping/Banning for personal reasons

Why does it... this post He’s still acting like he’s untouchable—totally unbanned even after three formal reports. I guess some people just think the rules don't apply to them, or maybe the mods are just looking the other way. It's pretty frustrating, honestly.

Peace and quiet said:

King Arthur said:It’s much the same way with how Jews never actually forgot their lost homeland—Palestine—and eventually made their way back after two thousand years to reclaim it. I guess you could say history has a funny way of circling back on itself, maybe.

They only made one major mistake, really—they should have just left that country alone... I guess. Maybe if they hadn't poked the bear, things wouldn't be this messy, but then again, who am I to say how geopolitics should work? It’s all just a series of miscalculations, isn't it? buybacks If we could just get some local Arabs to step up and settle things at a decent price—not that it matters much, since they basically have a stranglehold on printing dollars in the US anyway—we’d probably be looking at global peace by now. I guess.

If things are going to actually get better... well, I guess they have to be driven by good deeds. It’s just how it works, maybe. 😂
So, now the crowd has suddenly decided they want their country back—the one they basically signed away—claiming all those purchase agreements are somehow void because they didn't quite grasp the fine print... or whatever. It’s just one of those things, I guess. Typical.
Maybe they were being honest back then and just moved away—I mean, that’s one way to look at it—but now their descendants have suddenly realized the whole thing was a massive scam. So now they want to come back and reclaim what they consider "theirs," and they're basically trying to contest the entire sale. I guess it's just how history works sometimes... people change their minds when enough generations pass.
There’s all sorts of weirdness going on over there—just total chaos, I guess.

This is pure racism—nothing less. It’s just blatant incitement of national hatred and a way to downplay genocide against an entire people. To put this in perspective, it's honestly no different than someone trying to deny that slavery ever happened by making claims like—

I mean, a good chunk of the African population migrated to the New World entirely of their own volition—much like how people are flocking to the European Union today—simply because they’ve heard that life is a whole lot better over there than it is back in Africa... I guess.

...or...

I mean, a significant number of German Jews basically just handed over their shops and factories to the local authorities—it was almost voluntary at this point—just to make things easier later on. I guess they figured if they played the victim card effectively enough, getting an American green card would be a smoother process... maybe.

...or...

Well, a good chunk of Americans from the Midwest and California went ahead and sold off their property to Mexicans quite willingly back in the day—and now, suddenly, they’ve decided those sales contracts don't count, and they want to come back and reclaim what’s "theirs"... I guess. It’s all a bit messy, really.

This guy is still acting all high and mighty—as if these little "benign" trolls aren't basically just being cardboard cutouts of themselves. I mean, you can sum up this whole trolling routine in maybe two words. And of course, the author over on Blue Bird keeps doubling down on the same debunked lies—it’s been called out repeatedly, yet somehow, there's zero accountability for it. It just stays there. Maybe that's just how it works now, I guess.

Peace and quiet... if only. said:Hey there, jadeorca42—

So, I just got hit with an infraction over on Reddit—which is always a fun way to start the day, I guess. It’s one of those things where you’re just existing, minding your own business, and then suddenly there's a notification telling you that you've crossed some invisible line. Maybe I was too blunt, maybe I misread the room... it's hard to say, really. Everything feels so strictly moderated lately—it's almost exhausting, if you think about it. Anyway, just wanted to mention it.

Reason: Trolling
-------

-------

Look, this violation carries a 35-point penalty—which, I guess, might mean your access gets restricted until the thing finally runs its course. Just a heads-up, though... if things get serious enough, some infractions just don't ever expire. Not that I'm judging, but you should probably keep that in mind.

Original Post:
I don't know—maybe I’m just getting old, or maybe the world is just tilting in a weird direction lately—but looking at this discussion on Reddit, I can't help but feel like we're all just circling the same drain. It’s that same old pattern, isn't it? Everyone is shouting, everyone thinks they have the absolute truth, and yet, somehow, nothing actually changes. It feels like we've been here before. You see these arguments break out, people digging their heels in over things that probably won't matter in five years, let alone fifty. I guess there's a certain exhaustion that comes with watching it all play out—this constant cycle of outrage and then... nothing. Just a quiet sort of emptiness where the progress was supposed to be. Maybe it's just my cynicism talking—I tend to lean that way these days—but I wonder if we even have the capacity to fix the big stuff anymore. We get so bogged down in the minutiae of our own little bubbles that the actual, massive shifts happening around us seem almost theoretical. It’s a bit overwhelming, honestly. Or maybe I'm just overthinking it. It's hard to tell sometimes.

Quote: Twitter said:Are we actually in NATO or not? Do we have obligations or are we just playing pretend? Are we part of some non-aligned movement, or are we just sitting here enjoying the expansion of Russian imperialism?

Look, people have already addressed this nonsense multiple times, so maybe it’s time to take the hint and just head home for the night.

Yes, we are in NATO, and yes, we have responsibilities.

1) Ukraine isn't in NATO, so NATO doesn't owe them anything.

2) Following that logic—which seems pretty straightforward—the US has no obligation to go to war in Ukraine.

Twitter said:On one hand, you think it's perfectly fine for one country to occupy another, much like how Mexico used to act, and everyone should just look the other way? And thirdly, what happens if Russian fascism keeps moving forward?

Thirdly? We’ll sit tight and wait for the Russians to arrive, hoping they don't cause too much damage. I guess that's still a better option than your idea—sending our military to meet them halfway, only to be wiped out in fifteen minutes. That would probably just make them angrier, and then when they finally reach America, they'll take it out on women and children. Wait a second... are you actually suggesting our little force would be the key factor in stopping the Russians from advancing toward the US??? 😱

Actually, forget it—this whole exchange is just stupid, both your question and my answer. If that third scenario plays out and the Russians keep pushing, the whole world is going to turn into a furnace and the oceans will boil away...

If you're feeling particularly brave, feel free to sign up for the Ukrainian volunteer units. I suppose it's better to cause trouble for the Ukrainian Nazis than to deal with it here. Just leave us alone; we aren't looking for a war, and tourist season is right around the corner...

All the best,
Reddit

Honestly, I think Reddit needs to be burned down—Cicero

jadeorca42 said:This is pure racism, spreading national hatred and downplaying genocide against certain people.

Friendly advice: you're being way too extra. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more complex than that.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict

It’s not like there isn't anything to say about how the Jewish people acted, but in this specific part, the guy is right. And look, I don't know much about mapping criteria, so I shouldn't be getting involved in that.

Christian Torres3 said:It’s well-intentioned advice, I guess, but maybe you're overthinking it just a bit. The Israeli-Palestinian land dispute
The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews

It’s not like there isn't anything to say about how Jews acted, but in that specific part, I suppose the guy is right. As for the technicalities of land surveying—that’s not really my area, so I probably shouldn't weigh in on that.

Oh, would you look at that... sure, you could find plenty of evidence that many Jews voluntarily sold off their property to the Nazis in Germany, but of course, those facts would never be used to deny the genocide against them—not in the way rowdytiger13 does when he talks about Palestinians.
If his post feels a little too heavy for you to brush off, feel free to go back through the whole thread—and even the pages before it. It's just pure, unadulterated distortion of Jewish-Palestinian history (he basically treats Zionist propaganda as gospel...) and a total denial of the crimes committed against what he calls "nomadic tribes"—people who supposedly earned the state they got, Jordan...
It's a serious verbal crime, really. If anyone else had written something like that about Jews, they would have been hit with a permanent ban.

Still waiting for a response from the moderators.

Besides, I honestly think this whole forum should just be burned down—Cicero

Since I've been called out, I'll just say this: I stand by everything I wrote in that post.

It’s not just a slow day for the mod team—it looks like they decided to mash Easter and May Day together into one big holiday... there isn't a single moderator in sight to be found.
I'm actually interested in hearing what the other moderators think here, rather than listening to rowdytiger13—his take is biased and, frankly, pretty prejudiced, which I guess is obvious enough from what was posted; there's really no need to add or subtract anything from that reality...

Let’s dial back the finger-pointing just a bit. rowdytiger13 was called out, and he has already provided his statement. Once he has responded, if you find his explanation insufficient, you are free to demand a clarification from a higher authority. We will simply assume you have done exactly that, and we shall await word from a superior instance.

Well, initially, I did ask for an intervention from higher-ups—though I wasn't calling for rowdytiger13 specifically to weigh in; they were just sharing their own views in their posts.
What I’m actually wondering about is why this particular post—which is nothing short of blatant racism and xenophobia, really the peak of several preceding comments—isn't being sanctioned. For example, that bit where they mockingly refer to Palestinians as "nomadic tribes," essentially denying them any right to live in Israel (even though they were given the state they asked for—Jordan)... if those same words were uttered in public by someone on the opposing side, say, a Jew, they'd be facing actual legal prosecution. Yet, here we are, and no action is taken. Meanwhile, other users get flagged for the most trivial nonsense, mostly just because they happen to expose how intellectually bankrupt this particular contributor is.
How can you let someone who is so openly biased, both politically and personally, moderate political discussions? It's... well, it's something.

Just a collection of certain individuals offering open copy-pasted Zionist propaganda, I guess.

rowdytiger13 said:They weren't given anything, I agree. (Regarding the Jews)
You can't be "given" what has always belonged to you. You can only have it returned.

rowdytiger13 said:Palestinians have their own state, and it's called Jordan.
They established a state on territory that belongs to them.

rowdytiger13 said:The people who once lived on this territory no longer exist.
Jews survived in the diaspora for hundreds of years and eventually returned home.
That's assuming the nomadic tribes scattered throughout that protectorate also received a state.

rowdytiger13 said:What... assimilate them?
I could try... except Jews have proven to be a people extremely resistant to assimilation.
Cruder methods were tried too, but that hasn't worked for anyone ever again.

And which other people in the world live in exile without a state? Aside from the Romani, I suppose.

Finally, just to address rowdytiger13—who will likely appeal to the jury by claiming the prosecutor is an open antisemite because "I have Jewish friends but I don't have Palestinian friends"—let me be clear: standing against this pathetic kind of propaganda doesn't make one an antisemite, nor does it mean hating Jews.
I've got some German friends too, but that doesn't mean I have to just sit there in silence while Nazi propaganda spreads.

No, you didn't actually specify that you wanted a response from a different moderator, and the first point of contact for any reaction is the moderator.
In the meantime, I have notified the head moderator about your complaint, so please exercise a bit of patience until he arrives.

Are we just waiting for things to stagnate, or what...?

So, SheShovinist is out there racking up more nationalist-chauvinist victories again:

Brenda Cook is riding a wave of nationalistic hatred toward Russians

Brenda Cook said:What do you mean by 'Russophone areas' or 'negotiations'? You mean occupying someone else's country? I think the USA and Europe need to respond to this fascism with full force—and if Russia can't, obviously, be invited back into the 21st century, then they should just be completely isolated. They really should have done that during World War II, and maybe half of Europe wouldn't be in mourning because of those primitive losers.

Basically, her constant stirring up of nationalistic hate combined with trolling political topics through incredibly stupid phrasing and nonsense—like claiming Americans have some sort of obligation to fight in Ukraine (which isn't required of Germans or Englishmen, but somehow Americans *must*...?!?)—isn't subject to sanctions, yet my warnings about it are?

It seems like blatant violations of the sub-forum rules aren't sanctioned; if anything, there are elements here that could justify legal action against the forum itself. It feels like the mods are basically sucking up to her and handing out bans to other users just to stroke her ego, simply because she felt offended when others called out her chauvinistic outbursts.
And let's not forget, people actually get penalized for calling various world politicians fascists, Nazis, and so on...

I'm totally done with this kind of moderation.

jadeorca42 said:So, this SheShovinist just keeps riding high on her latest nationalist-chauvinist victories:

Brenda Cook42, swept up in a wave of nationalist hatred toward Russians

Her constant fuelings of nationalistic hate combined with trolling political topics through incredibly stupid logic—like claiming Americans have some mandatory obligation to fight in Ukraine (when neither Germans nor Englishmen nor even Americans are forced to, yet somehow Americans *must*...?!?!). That kind of thing isn't hit with sanctions, but my warnings about it are?

It’s like the rules of this sub-forum aren't even enforced; if anything, there's enough evidence here for actual legal action against this site. Instead, the mods basically kiss her ass and hand out cards to anyone else just to stroke her ego, simply because she felt "offended" when others called her chauvinistic outbursts what they actually were.
And let's not forget, people get sanctioned just for calling various world leaders fascists or Nazis.

This moderation is absolute garbage.

You really need to be seriously disciplined. First off, you deny that America is part of the NATO pact, which means if a situation ever arises involving Russia, America does indeed have obligations. You deny that, and frankly, it's unlawful.

Secondly, totalitarian communist regimes have been condemned by the EU. When I say that issue should have been settled regarding World War II instead of letting half of Europe fall under such a totalitarian system, you go right to demanding bans and punishments. And then you have the nerve to call my opposition to an invasion of a sovereign nation a "chauvinistic outburst." Apparently, opposing the Russian invasion of a sovereign Ukraine is considered "chauvinism." Just fantastic.

Here is one of your typical posts:

jadeorca42 said:NATO arrived in America (unfortunately) back in 1999 in the form of bombs falling from planes, hitting everywhere from the Midwest to the coast... so... ZIYEEEV...

jadeorca42 As if I haven't heard this all before...
So, let me get this straight—we’re sitting here watching blatant violations of the sub-forum rules go completely unpunished? It’s not just that there's zero enforcement; it feels like we're actually bordering on grounds for legal action against this entire site. Is anyone else seeing this, or am I just shouting into the void here?

I am formally requesting that the relevant administration grant me unconditional permission to carry out my own business. General Rules i Terms of Use:

So, what exactly is off-limits around here on the forum? What are the rules we actually need to follow if we want to keep this place from turning into a total circus?
- Is there anything more frustrating than watching the blatant disregard for the rule of law happening right before our eyes here in America? It honestly makes you wonder if the legal framework we hold so dear actually means anything at all anymore, or if it’s just a suggestion for those in power. When you see these systemic violations occurring, doesn't it feel like the very foundation of our justice system is being chipped away, one oversight after another?

Look, let’s get one thing straight right out of the gate: posting certain types of content on this forum is strictly prohibited. Is it really that hard to follow the rules? We all want to keep this space functional, so please, just keep it civil and stick to the guidelines.:
- Is there anything more frustrating than watching the blatant violation of the laws of the United States? It honestly makes you wonder if anyone in our legal system actually gives a damn about the rules we all agreed to live by, doesn't it? Just a quick heads-up for everyone here: we have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to hate speech or any kind of discrimination. We’re also strictly against anyone trying to justify or glorify criminal acts, copyright infringement, animal cruelty, or anything involving child exploitation. Let's keep things civil and follow the rules.

So, looking at this thread about Ukraine, I can't help but notice we have people posting here actually trying to justify one nation's aggression against another. Really? Is that where we are now?
I can't help but wonder why our legal system sets the sentencing guidelines for this specific offense at up to ten years? It seems like such a heavy weight to drop on someone, doesn't it?

The sheer audacity of an act of aggression—it really makes you stop and think, doesn't it? When one nation decides to simply trample over another, ignoring every semblance of international order and basic human decency, what are we actually looking at here? It isn't just a tactical maneuver or a border dispute; it's a fundamental violation of everything we claim to stand for. Can we even call it "politics" anymore when it's clearly just raw, unadulterated aggression?

Is there any chance anyone actually understands the implications of Article 89? It feels like one of those legal provisions that everyone nods along to in meetings, yet when you really sit down to dissect what it actually means for us, the whole thing starts to look incredibly complicated, doesn't it?
Who exactly is the one standing there, openly and directly calling for the crime of aggression?
We're looking at a potential prison sentence ranging anywhere from one to ten years.

If you really want to wrap your head around what actually constitutes an act of aggression, you really ought to take a close look at Article 4—it lays everything out perfectly.

So, let's break this down: an act of aggression—as defined in the first section of this article—is officially considered to be such regardless of whether a formal declaration of war was ever actually issued beforehand. Doesn't that just change the entire legal landscape of how we view conflict? It essentially means the label sticks based on the action itself, not some bureaucratic paperwork filed by a government.

What exactly defines an invasion? Is it just one nation's military forces storming into another's territory, or does it encompass a full-scale military occupation—even if that occupation is only meant to be temporary? And where do we draw the line when a country uses brute force to swallow up all or even just a slice of its neighbor's land? It’s a complex web of aggression and annexation, isn't it?

What does it actually mean when one nation's military decides to rain fire down on another sovereign territory, or more broadly, when any state chooses to deploy its weaponry within the borders of a neighbor? Is there a point where we stop calling it "defense" and start calling it what it truly is? It’s a heavy question, isn't it? When you look at the raw mechanics of one country launching an armed assault or utilizing its arsenal inside the jurisdiction of another, you have to wonder about the legal and moral lines being crossed. Are we just witnessing a breakdown of international order, or is this simply how power operates in our modern world?

What if we’re talking about one nation deploying its armed forces to block off another country's ports or coastline? I mean, just think about the sheer audacity of that move—it's a massive escalation, isn't it? You aren't just talking about a minor diplomatic spat or some heated rhetoric in Washington; you're talking about a direct, physical confrontation on the water, where one military is essentially putting a stranglehold on another's lifeline. How does a situation like that even begin to resolve itself without spiraling into something much darker?

What exactly constitutes an armed attack by one nation against the territory, waters, airspaces, or the naval and air fleets of another? Is it really that straightforward, or are we just scratching the surface of what modern warfare actually looks like?

So, let’s break down what we’re actually looking at here, because it’s a bit more nuanced than just "soldiers on the ground." We're talking about a scenario where one nation decides to deploy its armed forces within the borders of another country—even if that second country initially gave them the green light. It becomes a massive legal headache when those military operations start veering away from the specific terms laid out in their formal agreement. Or, even more complicated, what happens when that agreement expires, yet those troops just... stay? You know, they stick around past their welcome after the contract has officially ended? That’s where things get incredibly messy under international law.

So, let me get this straight—what happens when one country hands over territory to another, only for that second nation to turn around and use it as a staging ground for an unprovoked attack on a third party? Is that considered a direct violation of sovereignty, or does it fall under some other kind of legal loophole? It’s a massive question, isn't it? I mean, if a state grants access to its land and then watches as that land becomes a launchpad for aggression, where does the accountability actually lie? Does the responsibility rest solely with the aggressor, or does the host nation share the blame for providing the tools for such an assault? It really makes you wonder about the fine line between cooperation and complicity in international law.

7. The deployment of armed gangs, militias, or mercenaries acting on behalf of, or at the behest of, a state to carry out armed actions against another nation—actions that are just as severe as if the state itself had directly launched them.

If you look closely at this point, it becomes blindingly obvious that Russia is the aggressor within the sovereign territory of Ukraine.
And honestly, there’s a very simple reason why posts justifying this aggression aren't permitted here:
- there are simply too many of them, and even more of those delusional types who think they're above reality. 🤦
I realize moderation is a massive headache, but when the feed is cluttered with this kind of garbage, it completely poisons the well for any actual, decent conversation.

God, this feels like trying to slap a dead donkey. 😁

Brenda Cook4 said:You seriously need some sanctions—first off, you’re denying that America is part of the NATO pact.

Can someone drop a link showing where I actually deny that America is in NATO?
🤣

Brenda Cook4 said:So basically, if any situation arises involving Russia, America has its obligations—you're denying that, and that's illegal.

If some situation arises with Russia? Like, what, a gas pipeline disaster near Irkutsk? We have obligations? And denying them is against the law? Honey, where on earth did you study law?

Let me say this one more time—just so we're clear—UKRAINE IS NOT IN NATO. NATO isn't going to send a single soldier there, unless you count private contractors doing messy work. As part of NATO, we have zero military obligations toward Ukraine.
There, it's right there in black and white. Go ahead, consult the Department of Justice and see if they want to come after me.
🤣

Brenda Cook4 said:Secondly, totalitarian communist regimes have been condemned by the EU and...

Fake Quote
🤣

Brenda Cook4 said:When I say that issue should have been settled regarding World War II instead of letting half of Europe fall under such a totalitarian system, you're still asking for nothing less than a ban and criminal punishment.

Right, because you're suggesting that after 60 million deaths in World War II, the West should have just attacked the Soviet Union and killed another 20 or 30 million people, dragging Europe into decades of war and contaminating it with radiation forever... because apparently, an anti-communist war is somehow better than a communist peace...
And now you're offended because someone called that an idiotic idea?

Maybe if the Russians had just stopped at the edge of the Soviet Union and signed a peace treaty with Hitler, he could have diverted all those eastern divisions toward the West. In that scenario, I guess the British and most of Western Europe would be speaking German today, and they wouldn't be dealing with the fallout of fifty years of communism.

But we’re drifting off track. Honestly, nobody was calling you out for these kinds of childish fantasies—it was because of the blatant, unapologetic chauvinism (which, I suppose, comes from a personal place):

Brenda Cook4 said:They should have done that during World War II, and half of Europe wouldn't be mourning those primitive losers. (Referring to Russians—ed. note.)

Ideas can be criticized, sure, and even insulted—but attacking someone personally is an *ad hominem*, whereas attacking based on nationality, race, or religion is chauvinism, racism, or religious fanaticism. And that's strictly against the forum rules.
But apparently, it's more important to penalize the truth-tellers who try to stop political threads from being derailed by stupid, infantile ramblings that just repeat page after page—stuff that gets labeled as "trolling." Because sometimes, someone who knows nothing about history might write this nonsense, but when they keep repeating it despite every argument presented, it's just pure, unadulterated trolling.

Brenda Cook4 said:And you actually have the nerve to call my opposition to an invasion "chauvinistic diarrhea," just because opposing the Russian invasion of a sovereign Ukraine is supposedly "chauvinism." That's just fantastic.

Opposing the Russian invasion of a sovereign Ukraine is a legitimate stance.
Chauvinism is what this is:

Brenda Cook4 said:They should have done that during World War II, and half of Europe wouldn't be mourning those primitive losers. (Referring to Russians—ed. note.)

And the hypocrisy lies in calling Ukraine "sovereign" right after an American-backed coup, while foreign spies and vice presidents from other nations are landing in their capital to hand out directives.

Brenda Cook4 said:Here’s your classic post:

Yeah, that’s pretty much my typical post right there.
I suppose it could have been flagged for trolling—if the mods could actually prove it, though it seems like they only care about proving things when you take aim at their little favorites on this forum, kind of like how they treat you, I guess.
And what part of that post is actually confusing you? Is it the fact that during the 1999 strikes coming back from the North America, bombs were falling over America—specifically hitting areas near the coast? You never saw that on CNN? Well, I didn't just see it on CNN; I saw it happen in person.
Like I said before, if you don't believe me, feel free to dig through the archives of the New York Times from May 1999. I think it was around May 12th, 1999, but I can't be entirely certain. There was a small column on the first inside page, top left corner. I actually called journalists out to the field myself.

loneraven25 said:I’m asking the relevant admins to unconditionally enforce the General Rules and the Terms of Service here:

So, looking at this thread about Ukraine, we have posts actually justifying one nation's aggression against another,
which—under our federal Penal Code—can carry a sentence of up to ten years.

The Crime of Aggression

To make it clear what constitutes aggression, it's explained in Article 4.

From this point, it's obvious that Russia is the aggressor on the territory of the sovereign state of Ukraine,
and the reason I haven't listed all the posts justifying this aggression is pretty simple
—there are just too many of them, and the ones acting like they're above the fray are even more numerous. 🤦
I get that moderating is a headache, but this kind of stuff just pollutes the space for any actual, normal discussion.

Oh, thanks, colleague. Based on those exact points, maybe blue bird could be criminally prosecuted herself (along with this site as a safe haven for chauvinists like her...).
Along with blue bird, you've got folks like Kanzas, Tenedor, MC, Kilgor, and you—all these wonderful deniers of American imperialist wars worldwide, as well as the American special warfare in Ukraine (since there’s plenty of evidence—even the West hasn't denied it—that a coup orchestrated by the American regime took place in Ukraine).
When you wonderful deniers of various aggressions eventually face legal sanctions, I’ll gladly report myself to the authorities for the crime of denying the Russian occupation of Ukraine. I can't wait for an independent jury to prove an occupation that was essentially a legal result of a demonstrably free referendum 😁😁😁

To quote our chauvinist colleague once more:

blue bird said:What 'Russophone areas' and what 'negotiations'? You mean the occupation of someone else's land? The USA and Europe need to respond to this fascism with full force, and if Russia can't—obviously—be invited back into the 21st century, they should be completely isolated. They really should have done that during World War II, which would have prevented half of Europe from being wrapped in black cloth along with those primitive losers (Russians-op, by the way).

jadeorca42 said:Well, thanks for pointing that out, friend. Based on those exact points, blue bird might actually find herself facing some legal action (and let’s be honest, this forum serves as a perfect little sanctuary for bigots like her...).
Along with blue bird, we've got guys like Kanzas, Tenedor, MC, Kilgor, you, and the rest of the gang...

I really hope you realize that under the U.S. Penal Code, there's actually a specific statute regarding defamation.

Section 149.
(1) Anyone who, in the presence of others, makes or delivers a false statement of fact
that could damage someone's reputation or honor, while knowing the statement is untrue,
shall be punished by a fine of up to three hundred and sixty daily rates.
(2) Anyone who commits the act described in paragraph 1 of this section through print, radio, television, computer
systems, or online networks, at a public gathering, or by any other means that makes it accessible
to a larger number of people, shall be punished by a fine of up to five hundred daily rates.

loneraven25 said:I am formally requesting the relevant administration to unconditionally enforce their General Rules and Terms of Service:

So, looking at this thread about Ukraine, we have posts actively justifying one nation's aggression against another,
which is actually a crime under our Penal Code punishable by up to ten years.

The crime of aggression

To clarify what constitutes aggression, please refer to Article 4.

From this point, it's clear that Russia is the aggressor on the sovereign territory of Ukraine,
and the reason I haven't listed every single post justifying this aggression is simple
— there are just too many of them, and the outliers are even more frequent. 🤦
I realize moderation is a nightmare, but these kinds of comments are poisoning the well for any decent discussion.

Moderating this is a mess, and I’m not even exaggerating.
I'll admit I was wrong to think the passions surrounding Ukraine could be settled through compromise... and sure, you can talk sense into some people, but unfortunately, not everyone.
Things need to boil over and start from scratch without making concessions, because trying anything else has clearly been a mistake.

Look, don't go blaming yourselves for this; there really ought to be at least two moderators active on a thread like this at all times,
two impartial experts who are actually being paid to handle things professionally.
Relying on volunteers just doesn't cut it here because it’s nearly impossible for someone stepping in mid-stream to catch all the context.
When it comes to more serious violations of the US Penal Code, you absolutely have to report those abuses to the proper authorities,
but for everything else, you can just handle it yourselves based on your own best judgment.

loneraven25 said:I just hope you realize there’s actually a statute regarding defamation in the Penal Code.

I’m glad we finally see eye to eye on this—or at least, I think we do. You’re the one who actually cited the legal provisions that define those specific individuals (looking at you, Kansas, Kilgor, MC, and the rest) as chauvinists—people who, by law, should probably be dealt with officially without anyone needing to issue warnings like this.
If the law itself categorizes them that way, then someone else pointing it out shouldn't really count as defamation. It's not like I'm making things up out of thin air... For instance, if someone calls a figure like Ivo Sanader a criminal, he can't exactly sue them for libel. Do I really need to break that down further for you using a visual aid?

rowdytiger13 said:Moderating this stuff is a nightmare—I’m not even exaggerating here.
I guess I was wrong to think that the passions surrounding the conflict in Ukraine could just be settled through dialogue... and yeah, maybe you can talk things out with some people, but unfortunately, not everyone is willing to play ball.
Things probably need to boil over and start from scratch without making any concessions, because trying to compromise seems to have been a mistake.

Honestly, your mistake—or maybe just an inability to tell the difference—is blurring the line between actual violations of forum rules and the US Penal Code versus just people being unable to handle a bit of friendly criticism. Some users just can't take feedback without treating it like a personal attack.
And let's be real, you're also right there in the mix, promoting chauvinism and nationalistic hatred (towards Palestinians, for instance).

That’s why topics regarding Ukraine have become totally unrecognizable, just like the threads on Syria, Libya, Iraq, or Iran... and it’s the moderators who get the blame, rather than the sea of chaos itself.

So, go ahead and take this as a personal attack if that's how you want to see it.

jadeorca42 said:Your issue—or rather, your inability to distinguish between actual violations of forum rules and criminal law versus just being unable to handle a bit of friendly criticism without taking it personally—is pretty obvious.
By the way, you’re also right up there with the people promoting chauvinism and national hatred (against Palestinians, for instance).

That’s why threads about Ukraine are totally warped, much like the ones on Syria, Libya, Iraq, or Iran... and naturally, it’s the moderators' fault, not the community's.

Go ahead and take this as a personal attack if that helps you sleep at night.

I don't believe my moderation has done you any favors, and I'm confident that the bans I issued (if I recall, there were only two) were entirely justified.
Since you're clearly someone who isn't interested in civil discourse (at least not in my book), and since there's zero chance of you learning from this before trying to bait me into an argument... let's just call it even. This debate, and any future ones, are officially over.