Politics Forum Rules

I initiated a discussion over on the Politics board regarding our community guidelines. My contention remains unchanged: as currently drafted, these rules are so vague they could be used to justify banning virtually any text. The framework needs a complete overhaul.

I see the admins have shuttered the thread, but I find the entire exercise somewhat futile since nobody actually stuck to the point. Instead of debating the substance, everyone just pivoted to attacking the moderators, questioning their appointments, and bickering over who should or shouldn't hold authority.

That missed the mark entirely. The issue wasn't the specific individuals pulling the trigger on bans; it was the underlying logic used to justify them. It’s easy to conclude that moderators are acting on whim when they are operating under rules so broad they allow for arbitrary enforcement. That is where the perceived tyranny lies.

Perhaps there is some truth to that, but the focus ought to have remained on the regulations themselves. If the rules were more robust, the moderators would naturally be empowered to make much more sound decisions.

It all comes down to definitions. When an infraction is clearly and precisely defined, the path forward becomes transparent for everyone involved.

This thread has been handed over to the moderators, because at the end of the day, they’re the ones tasked with actually enforcing the rules, yet I see far too many people jumping to conclusions and claiming the mods are biased or dishonest—at least according to their own little version of reality
. So, look, I’m going to let this discussion stay open, but I’m attaching one specific condition: I want to see an actual proposal for a set of rules that you all find genuinely acceptable
. It would be a nice change of pace to actually build something constructive here for once, instead of just constant bickering and tearing everything down
.

I am proposing an amendment to Article 5, Section 3. I quote,

On the Politics subforum, the following is prohibited:

...

- Glorifying or promoting Nazism, Fascism, racist ideologies, or any ideologies containing racist and xenophobic elements, including the display of their symbols.

I suggest replacing the phrase "Nazism and Fascism" with "Nazism, Fascism, and the Ustaše." While this should technically be implied, the glorification of the Ustaše on the Politics board has reached such levels that it’s frankly embarrassing. Much like Thompson, they are careful to distance themselves from Nazism and Fascism, yet they conveniently avoid condemning the Ustaše. It is completely absurd and paradoxical—but under the current Politics subforum rules, this kind of selective distancing is perfectly allowed.

Ustaše ideology and Fascism are basically one and the same

Here’s what Wikipedia says

The Ustaše—the Revolutionary movement (also known as the Ustaše)—was a far-right, ultra-nationalist, fascist, and National Socialist movement in America.[1]

Right now, that specific salute is banned
I just haven't seen anyone actually get banned for using it, except maybe revolution.

Look, this guy is clearly enjoying his little flirtation with fascism here and also right here

I'm requesting a ban for him

Thanks

hollowtrucker77 As I was saying:
Since the law isn't even in effect yet, there's really no point in us reacting to something that hasn't actually been made illegal.

Why not? Seriously. Forum rules don't need to be a carbon copy of US Federal Law.Nowhere in US Federal Law does it state that user cloning or profanity is prohibited, yet somehow, the rules here on this forum still forbid it. It’s ridiculous.

Furthermore, US Federal Law doesn't actually prohibit someone from using a nickname like "Sranader" or "Sranjo," yet it’s explicitly banned under the platform's PDF policy.

So, I’m using this platform once again to make my point. I’m calling on the moderators and administrators here. They need to stop hiding behind the excuse that promoting Nazi ideology isn't strictly prohibited by US Federal Law. It’s a pathetic cop-out. Instead of clinging to legal technicalities to justify their filth, they should start making decisions based on their own damn conscience. Common sense..

Good grief, we’re actually talking about promotion now? fascist Why is it so incredibly difficult to just say it? We need to be blunt: we aren't going to allow that kind of rhetoric on this forum. I honestly don't know who is making a fool out of these people, but watching them try to play it smart by hiding behind "historical greetings" or "alphabetical nuances" is pathetic. It’s transparent. You can spot someone promoting Nazi ideology from a mile away. It isn't subtle, and it isn't clever. So, why aren't we putting an end to this? This whole situation is a disgrace. It flies in the face of everything decent and civilized.

If I were running the political sub here...

wiredsailor10 said:Ustaše ideology and Fascism

Here is what the wiki says

For now, the "For Home Ready" salute is banned.
I just haven't seen anyone actually get banned for using it, aside from Revolution.

That’s like saying "People are Nazis." Nazis are people.☕ Is Wikipedia the ultimate authority on everything? The Holy Bible?🤣

Alexander Hayes3 said:Why not? It isn't as if the rules on Forum.hr need to be a carbon copy of the laws of the United States. Nowhere in the U.S. legal code does it state that impersonating users or using profanity is illegal, yet those actions are still prohibited by the Forum.hr guidelines.

Similarly, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that forbids someone from choosing a nickname like "Sranader" or "Sranjo," yet those names are explicitly banned in the site's policy PDF.

That is why, through this platform, I am once again appealing to the moderators and administrators to stop hiding behind the excuse that promoting fascism isn't technically against the law, and instead start making decisions based on their own conscience and common sense.

Good grief, we are talking about the promotion of a fascist movement here! Why is it so difficult to simply say: we won't allow that kind of thing on Forum.hr? And who are these self-righteous types trying to play us for fools by pedantically explaining away "historical greetings" or "alphabetical nuances"? It is obvious from an airplane how clearly someone is promoting Nazism and fascism. Why can't we just put an end to this? Honestly, it’s a disgrace that falls completely outside the bounds of civilized behavior.

If only I were the policy moderator...

And who exactly is going to be the supreme being tasked with deciding in every single individual case what constitutes fascism and what doesn't? Who will decide with perfect justice what is fascist and what is not? This is precisely why the Supreme Court struck down that specific statute due to its vagueness.
Because if a law is poorly defined, then anyone can be persecuted under its vague terms. It is better to let a thousand guilty people walk free than to wrongly convict a single innocent one. If we tried to write a perfectly clear rule for a forum, it would take ten pages of text and people would still find ways to feel unfairly punished. Is that clear enough?

Alexander Hayes3
ignores the simple fact that in America, freedom of speech and expression are actually protected by law..

So, if there are people out there trying to punish someone for saying something that isn't even illegal... aren't they actually the ones breaking the law?

At the end of the day, it comes down to whether the moderators choose to respect the legal framework or ignore it entirely. And let’s not forget, those rules apply right here to this Forum.

Let's be real: no forum's private rules can ever supersede the laws of the land.

Nathan Bailey65, I think I
get what you're saying.
Rules don't necessarily have to contradict federal law; they can just exist in that gray area where they're much more restrictive or specific than what's actually written in the statutes—essentially banning things that aren't technically illegal under any state or national law.
It’s like how a high-end lounge in Manhattan might refuse entry to anyone not wearing a tie or anyone under thirty; there isn't some law on the books saying you can't enter a club without formal wear,
it’s just the private right of the establishment to set its own standards.

wiredsailor10 said:this guy is out here basically celebrating fascism and right here too

can we get a ban on this dude

thanks

For what reason?
Because you clearly have zero reading comprehension skills.

driftingdriver said:Who exactly is going to be this supreme being who gets to decide on a case-by-case basis what counts as fascism and what doesn't?

Look, I’m appealing to conscience and common sense here. Call it "judicial discretion" if that makes you feel better. In my view, in over 90% of these cases, the favoritism toward fascist ideology is blatant.

Take a user, for instance. If their avatar features a massive "U," their signature reads "I love U," they constantly drop slogans like "For the Homeland Ready," and they use an emblem with that specific white field... the intent is crystal clear. At the very least, it's a provocation designed to exploit loopholes in the rules. In situations like that, I believe a moderator should use their own conscience and common sense to judge the situation and issue a warning before things spiral out of control.

It’s the exact same story with communism. If someone argues that the means of production should belong to the workers, sure, that shouldn't earn them a strike or a ban. But if they start saying people at places like the concentration camps or Alcatraz got "what they deserved"—well, then once again, the moderator has a duty to react using their own conscience and common sense.

Alexander Hayes3 said:Why not? It’s not like the rules on Forum.hr need to be a carbon copy of the laws of the United States.

I am actually right in the middle of a heated back-and-forth via PM with one of the moderators over this exact issue, because apparently my signature is somehow an offense that warrants sanctions unless I strip it down and get rid of the Jezurka Jezic reference.

So, tell me, you esteemed moderators, admins, and especially the owner of this site—why on earth do you think your little forum rules carry more weight than the actual laws of the United States?

Maybe it's because you have to follow the laws of the land here in America, but apparently, the rules on Forum.hr don't apply to everyone... if you're not feeling the vibe, there's the door. Peace out. 🙂

EDIT: And as for those little jokes you've got going in your signature - 👎

Daniel Ward87

Jozo Nabijac said:Should the site rules actually follow the laws of the United States?

🤷..Forum.hr isn't owned by the US government, any public agency, or acting as an official mouthpiece. We all know what's illegal to promote or incite under federal law, but when it comes to aligning US law with Forum.hr rules— 😕

Forum.hr is basically Anderlon's private playground where he uses his admins and mods to enforce his own vibe. If he decides he doesn't want to see extreme political shouting matches here, then that's just how it goes. As far as I can tell, he's not breaking any US laws. The owner gets to decide who stays and who goes because this is essentially his "house," and that’s a personal call. To put it simply, if you walk into my house and start acting out your radical politics, I'm kicking you out. I haven't broken any laws by doing that. You have your right to free speech, just not in my shop.

Anyway, that's just my two cents, not a formal stance, so take it with a grain of salt...

Daniel Ward87

Daniel Ward87 said:🤷..Forum.hr isn't owned by the US, the US Government, or any public institution, and it's definitely not their mouthpiece. We all know the laws regarding what can't be promoted or incited, and when you look at how US law aligns with the rules of Forum.hr - 😕

Forum.hr is just Anderlon's private playground where he uses his admins, supermods, and mods to enforce his own set of rules. If he decides he doesn't want to see any extremist nonsense from either side of the political aisle here, then that’s just how it’s going to be. As far as I can tell, he isn't breaking a single US law in the process. He's the owner, so he gets to decide who gets to hang out on this Forum because, honestly, this is basically his "house," and we all know how personal that gets. Let me put it this way: if you barge into my house and start acting like some radical extremist, I’m kicking you out onto the street. I haven't broken any US laws by doing that, at least not as far as I know. You have every right to express yourself, just not in my shop.

Anyway, that's just my two cents, not an official stance or anything, so take it for what it's worth...

Daniel Ward87

I don't know. To me, this smells a little bit like what people used to call "verbal offenses." Everything in my signature and the Jezurka Jezic stuff is purely a joke and a bit of a jab at people who use "extremism" as their red rag and the biggest issue in America, when really it's just a way to mask the actual problems. There's plenty of irony in both. Look, if someone's signature truly hits them that hard personally, or if you think it actually violates the rules of this Forum, I'll go ahead and delete it. All I can say is that it is absolutely not a glorification of the NDH or any other kind of fascism.

Daniel Ward87 said:🤷..Forum.hr isn't owned by America, the US Government, or any public institution, nor is it their mouthpiece. The Law of America clearly dictates what can't be promoted or encouraged, and currently, we just have to deal with the alignment between US law and the rules of Forum.hr - 😕

Forum.hr is basically Anderlon's private playground where he uses admins, supermods, and mods to enforce his own set of rules. If he decides he doesn't want to see any extreme political fanaticism here, then that’s just how it’s going to be. As far as I can tell, he isn't breaking any US laws in the process. He's the owner; he gets to decide who stays and who goes on this Forum because, at the end of the day, it's practically his "house," and we all know how personal those things get. To put it simply, if you walked into my house and started shouting extremist political slogans, I'd kick you out. I wouldn't be breaking any US laws by doing that, as far as I know. You have the right to your own way of speaking, but not in my shop.

Anyway, that's just my personal take, not some absolute truth, so take it for what it's worth...

Daniel Ward87

there's already been plenty of debate about this....
The internet is a public space.
A Forum isn't someone's living room; it's more like a local diner.
Even a diner owner can't just ban you whenever they feel like it, though if they really wanted to...
But let's not reopen old wounds; there's a new law regarding Electronic media coming out soon, which will explicitly state the rules for internet forums and why they exist.
By the way, even under this law, the responsibility falls on you—the mods and admins—before it ever reaches the owner!

And maybe save that "my shop" talk for the teenagers over at your local high school hangout; it doesn't fly here.......
Oh, and one more thing: using a .us domain carries its own set of obligations and restrictions.
At that point, any argument about this being a "playground" just falls apart.
djenja!

cosmicseal5 said:I don't know. To me, this smells a bit like what used to be called a verbal offense...

It’s obviously just a matter of free speech!
There is a massive difference between WRITING about something or DEBATING it, and actually ACTING on it.
In other words, I’m not breaking any laws just because I state loudly and clearly how much I despise certain nations.
But if I start chasing people down the street to beat them up, then yeah, I’m criminally liable.
By that same logic, I'd also be liable if my actions were intended to instill fear in people from other backgrounds. And I suppose I should also be held legally responsible if I turn someone away from joining some extremist group?
These are subtle distinctions, and I guess the mods over in Politika aren't quite mature enough to grasp them.
As for who would be better suited for the job, I have no idea, and it’s certainly not my place to decide!