Appeal regarding a reported post

I intended to wait 24 hours before reporting, but seeing as several moderators have already stepped into this thread since my initial report, I’m submitting this formal grievance regarding why this specific post hasn't been penalized.
The previous post saw this user accusing me of celebrating civilian casualties, and now he's doubling down on that exact claim here. My actual contributions to this thread remain untouched; anyone can check them and see how baseless those accusations are.

Anyone following this discussion knows I make an effort to stay civil, polite, and respectful. The idea that I would mock civilian victims is offensive to me personally.

While his first comment was removed—likely resulting in a sanction—this post is just a continuation of that same behavior. Even if one argues that people are entitled to their opinions, bringing my parents into the argument is completely irrelevant. It’s nothing more than pure trolling.

I have no interest in engaging at this level. If you don't find this worthy of a sanction, fine, but I refuse to continue discussing this topic with someone who attacks me personally like this. Thanks for your time.

That was your own words from a post that was deleted specifically for that reason.

Hardly "convenient," I suppose, when a projectile lands on the first day of school...

And that response was also deleted.

At least someone is celebrating civilian deaths.🙂

Here, you're attacking the person rather than the topic, which is effectively just an insult:

As for responding to our colleague's offensive posts, it never occurs to me to answer someone who sinks so low as to falsely claim a fellow forum member is celebrating civilian casualties.

As far as I'm concerned, none of these posts warrant a ban.

Charles Fox10 said:That was in a deleted post—deleted specifically because of what you wrote.

The response to that was also wiped.

Where exactly in my writing is there any "celebration" of civilian casualties?

Charles Fox10 said:You’re attacking the person rather than the topic, which is basically an insult:

How am I insulting him? By pointing out he falsely accused me of celebrating civilian deaths. Don't you think it's low to misrepresent someone like that?

Charles Fox10 said:It's none of my business; none of those posts warrant a ban.

If those are your moderation standards, I don't see much point in participating in a forum like this.

So you actually deleted my post just because of that one sentence... 🤦
Later.

I can't help but wonder why this keeps bothering you people:

Calling it "convenient" is a stretch when a projectile could hit a school on day one...

Yet you leave this standing:

Do you realize what would have happened if Tiananmen had succeeded? The death toll of democratized Chinese citizens would be massive, and China wouldn't look anything like it does now.
We could build a monument to Deng Xiaoping larger than the Statue of Liberty.

post

Once again, 🤦

To avoid any confusion, I’m asking the moderators to clarify why the post I reported hasn't been sanctioned. I would also like to know exactly which rule I supposedly broke, since my own post was deleted based on a single sentence taken completely out of context.
Thanks in advance.

Look, I don’t see any reason to issue a ban for the posts you’ve cited here.
Regarding that deleted post of yours where you wrote "It's cool"—it does sound a bit ambiguous, doesn't it? While I don't personally get the impression that you were celebrating civilian casualties, I can't say for certain whether someone else would have interpreted it differently had they stumbled upon that sentence without your context. So, rather than wasting more of our time on such trivialities, I have restored your post, albeit edited to remove that questionable phrasing.

William Bennett53 said:Look, I don't see those posts you're mentioning as anything worth a ban either.
That deleted post of yours where you wrote "It's convenient" sounds a bit ambiguous. I don't think you were actually celebrating civilian deaths, but I'm not sure I would have assumed that if I had just seen the sentence without your clarification. So, to avoid wasting more time on trifles, I restored your post, though I edited out that questionable phrase.

This isn't a trifle. I came here specifically for discussions involving those kinds of remarks. This is a forum, and my sole purpose here is to write such things. If that right is taken away, there’s no reason for me to stay.

Given the context of that day's discussion regarding the projectiles that caused the tragedy (though I wasn't explicitly referring to any specific event in that exact post), and the suspicions raised about whether a projectile might have been fired by outside parties holding Donetsk, the motive became clear. In that context, my meaning was obvious. Of course, saying something like, "From a propaganda standpoint, it's 'convenient' for a projectile to hit a school on the first day of term," would have been more precise, but I felt it was redundant given the conversation.

Secondly, yesterday was likely the first time I reacted emotionally, and it happened right here in this thread when I realized I was being accused of this:

As for responding to the offensive posts from that certain individual, it never even crosses my mind to engage with someone who stoops so low as to suggest a fellow forum member is celebrating civilian casualties.

On the other hand, it seems perfectly acceptable to accuse me of rejoicing in civilian deaths, and then to repeat that accusation while bringing my parents into it. Realistically, what kind of person celebrates civilian victims? A scumbag? An idiot? A complete zero? Pick an epithet and tell me which one applies to me if the post I reported doesn't warrant a ban.

I'm quoting from the post "but you and people like you." I am certain this type of addressing is penalized on this forum, but setting that aside, I want an answer regarding the implication that I celebrated civilian deaths. What does that say about me and people like me? If that isn't an insult worthy of a ban, then what exactly was that user trying to achieve?

Look, whether you choose to stay here is entirely up to you. But if you intend to stick around, be mindful of how you phrase things. Ambiguous language can easily be misread, leading to reactions you certainly didn't intend. That seems to be exactly what happened in the case you're complaining about: you were clumsy with your wording—whether intentionally or not—and described projectiles hitting a school as "convenient." Naturally, that triggered a response, and now you seem surprised that posts were deleted or that people reacted. If you exercised a bit more caution in your expression and avoided such double-edged insinuations, you might actually convey your intended meaning and bypass these unnecessary confrontations altogether.

William Bennett53 said:Look, staying here is your call. But if you plan to stick around, watch your phrasing. Vague constructions lead to misinterpretations, and when people read things differently than you intended, they react. That’s exactly what happened in your example: you were clumsy with your wording, describing projectiles hitting a school as "convenient," whether you meant it that way or not. It triggered a reaction, and now you're surprised that posts got deleted and people pushed back. A little more precision and fewer ambiguous insinuations would go a long way in making sure your point actually lands without causing unnecessary friction.

Is it really such an issue to provide context regarding why someone might target a school on the very first day of classes? I can't believe I have to explain this, or that I need to repeatedly point out that the quotation marks in that sentence clarify the actual meaning. Given the context of the discussion, the sentence is perfectly clear.

Once again, 🤦

Let me say this once more: perhaps you should focus on cleaning up your own track record before you start worrying about everyone else's.