Double Standards 2.0

User hr1u00 got a warning, and subsequently a ban, for insinuating that Walt Whitman was responsible for tearing down monuments across California. He was promised his warning would be cleared if he provided evidence:

.

Well, the evidence arrived, because let’s face it, hr1u00 is the most logically sound user on this entire board:
.

In stark contrast to hr1u00—who is unmatched here when it comes to actual arguments and proof—we have kumek. He is the ultimate troll, a complete puppet of the site's political agenda, and he’s currently insinuating that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the murders of Kirk and Paradox:

.

Making an insinuation about the responsibility for the death of a former U.S. President is a far more serious accusation than anything involving Whitman's monuments.

But lo and behold! The zealous mods don't give kumek a warning, they don't ban him, and they certainly don't demand evidence for his claims.

How much longer are you going to allow kumek's relentless trolling on every single thread he touches while banning the highest-quality contributors who back every single post with facts and evidence? If not immediately, then very soon, right?

Furthermore, Pringles just demonstrated exactly why the moderation team is constantly mocked for being incompetent. She latched onto a minor detail from my comment and started bringing up some supposed excuse from Cookie, simply because I accused him of failing to unban hr1u00. That is patently false. From my perspective, the situation is crystal clear:
- Yesterday and today, I check FEMA and see the status of the banned user hr1u00 remains unchanged.
- User hr1u00 received a warning and a ban for making an unsubstantiated insinuation.
- Chuck stated the ban would be lifted once he provided arguments.
- User hr1u00 provided those arguments, just as Chuck promised.
- Yet, I still see hr1u00 marked as gray, which tells me he hasn't been unbanned.

Pringles is implying that I am accusing Chuck of wrongdoing. She refuses to consider the possibility that I'm suggesting there might be a technical glitch on the forum. Instead, she demands an apology from Chuck, hits me with a warning for "trolling," and locks the thread with those standard, mindless scripts about "provocation" and "politeness"—as if my post were actually provocative or rude. She claims hr1u00 was banned yesterday.

Of course I checked the specific thread where hr1u00 received his warning, and there isn't a single post from him from yesterday on that thread. This means he either got the warning on a different topic, or he was on this one but his post was deleted.

Pringles, am I supposed to manually audit every single thread to see if hr1u00 has received a new warning? Otherwise, am I just going to get flagged for an insinuation that you perceive, even if it isn't necessarily true?

What exactly is tripping you up about my sentence?

Alright, I'm lifting the warning and the ban. But please, next time we have one of these debates, try putting in a bit more effort so we can avoid these kinds of misunderstandings.

I posted that at 3:53 PM according to the forum clock, and lifted the warning and ban at 3:54 PM. Since our friend is currently banned, feel free to ask him if that's accurate once he's back online.

To prevent any further confusion: the user ended up banned because his appeal lacked any actual arguments—he just pointed out what the post was referring to. I did my part by checking whether he actually had a point or not.

Charles Fox10 said:What part of what I just said is tripping you up??

I posted that at exactly 3:53 PM according to the forum clock, and the warning and the ban both went down at 3:54 PM. Since my buddy is currently sitting in ban-land, feel free to ask him if I'm telling the truth once he’s back online.

And look, just so we don't have any more "misunderstandings"—the guy got banned because his appeal didn't actually offer any real arguments; he just pointed out what the original post was about. I did my due diligence to see if he actually had a point or not.

It's pretty obvious you don't actually care why hr1u00 ended up banned—you already made that crystal clear to everyone here—what you're really fishing for, just like me, is why Kumek didn't get hit with a warning for doing the exact same thing. Why are you playing favorites with the rules?

Charles Fox10 said:What part of my sentence is actually confusing you??

I wrote that based on the forum clock at 3:53 PM, and the warning and ban were issued according to that exact same clock at 3:54 PM. Since our friend here is currently banned, feel free to ask him if that’s the truth once he’s back online.

And just so we can avoid any more misunderstandings: the guy ended up banned because his appeal offered zero actual arguments—he just mentioned what the post was referring to. Meanwhile, I actually took the time to see if he was right or not.

Where in this post of mine do you see me asking about that? Lay's was the one who made that the focus; I only put it in parentheses as a side note, referencing the previous thread that Lay's closed. Besides, I never even suggested you initiated the ban. That’s just an insinuation from Lay's.

What I want is for you to address the actual merits of the issue I raised. Why does hr1u00 have to provide proof for an insinuation that Walt Whitman is responsible for tearing down monuments in California or else face a ban—without even being given the space to do it independently or via a warning—while kumeka isn't asked to justify the insinuation that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the murder of Kirk and Papadopoulos, nor is he punished? Generally speaking, why is kumeka constantly tolerated when it comes to overstepping, playing politics with various rhetorical questions, and using irony, sarcasm, and baseless insinuations?

vividfox89 said:Michelle Evans, I guess I’ll have to scan every single thread just to see if someone got a warning, because apparently, I'm getting flagged for making an assumption you happen to disagree with...

You shouldn't come in here throwing around insults disguised as facts when you haven't actually verified what happened. If you can't check with the mods via DM, then it's better not to post about it at all. A simple appeal would have worked fine without all this... That's probably the better way to handle it.

vividfox89 said:Besides, I never actually suggested you were the one who initiated the ban. That was just an implication from Michelle Evans.

Please stop trolling. 😁 Let’s just move on and not carry this over to another thread. It’s pretty obvious what I said and what you said, and honestly, it all happened less than half an hour ago... maybe some of us have already moved past it.

Michelle Evans said:You shouldn't be coming in here throwing around offensive assumptions as if they're established facts without actually verifying anything. If you can't verify them—like by messaging the moderators or supermods directly—then don't bother posting about it. A simple complaint would have been fine, no issues there. That’s how you should handle this.

Nothing I said was offensive, and I certainly didn't present anything as an absolute fact. Where exactly did I present an offensive assumption as a fact? Please, quote me.

And if Cuca thinks I insulted him, then let *him* tell me. I'll clear things up with him personally and apologize if necessary. Why is it you? Or does playing defense attorney become mandatory when dealing with moderators?

You told me "we don't support lawyers here," even though I wasn't acting as anyone's counsel, yet somehow you're allowed to play lawyer for Cuca?

Michelle Evans said:Seriously, quit the trolling. I’m asking nicely. 😁 Can we just stop obsessing over whether this was posted on a different thread? It's obvious what I said and what you said. Besides, it happened less than half an hour ago—maybe some of us actually moved on.

What exactly is "trolling" supposed to mean here?

vividfox89 said:How exactly is that considered trolling...?

Maybe it’s because I never actually hinted at anyone getting banned...

vividfox89 said:I didn't say anything offensive, and I certainly didn't present any assumptions as facts. Where exactly did I do that? Please, just quote me...

Once the evidence finally came to light, Chuck promised he’d lift the strike and the ban. Yet, looking at our colleague hr1u00, eight days later, he's still sitting there suspended...

Is there a specific reason you’re bringing up Chuckie's ban and tying it to the fact that you're still suspended... or was that just a random thought? I offered you a chance to explain this earlier, but you stayed silent...
In a civilized society, accusing someone of breaking their word without any proof is pretty insulting... but I don't see why this is even becoming a debate. You didn't get a warning for being offensive. You got it because you came here specifically to stir the pot. That’s exactly why that part of the appeal was denied. I never actually said you had to apologize. I just pointed out that you haven't. Usually, when someone apologizes, it shows they realize they were in the wrong. In your case, you still don't seem to see the issue or realize how unnecessary that provocation was... No one is obligated to engage with topics that include that kind of behavior.

If Chuck feels like I insulted him, he should just tell me directly so we can clear the air... and I'll apologize if needed. Or is the moderation team supposed to be above criticism here?

You told me that we don't support playing lawyer here, even though I wasn't acting as anyone's attorney, yet you seem perfectly fine defending Chuck...

No, I’m just cleaning up this PDF to make sure the appeals look more professional and cut out any unnecessary provocations...

Honestly, why hr1u00 is banned again doesn't even matter—I mean, really, it’s a moot point because we don't even know the actual reason! The search function is totally broken, and for all we know, the post that got him in trouble was deleted anyway, so we're basically left guessing in the dark.

But here’s the real kicker—the thing everyone is trying to sweep under the rug, which is exactly why I started this thread and my other one too—is why hr1u00 got slapped with his first warning (not this current ban, but the one right before it) for making an accusation without any proof, while some other random user can throw out wild accusations without a shred of evidence and walk away completely scot-free.

I'm just looking for some actual justification for these double standards.

Michelle Evans said:Maybe it's because I haven't insinuated anything regarding anyone's ban.

Then what exactly is this?

Since we're talking about insinuations, could you please explain why you feel the need to imply that Charles Fox10 didn't keep his word?

Michelle Evans said:Go ahead. See the quote above. Do you have some special reason for linking Cukin's warning and the bans to the fact that this user is still banned? Or did you just say it out of nowhere? I offered you a chance to respond earlier, and you passed.

That is a logical fallacy right there. You aren't even considering other possibilities—like, for instance, that the forum was protected, which wouldn't be a first. And then you claim I should have asked Charles Fox10 to verify things instead of insinuating. Well, you could have just as easily asked me what I actually meant to verify it, so you wouldn't be insinuating either. And you don't hand out warnings for that.

You got your answer. It was very clear.

Michelle Evans said:In a civilized society, accusing someone of breaking a written promise without any evidence is quite offensive, yes.

table>
That's your insinuation—that I accused Charles Fox10 of failing to initiate the unbanning process. And that's the kind of "advocacy" you claim not to support here.

Quote:

Michelle Evans says: No, I don't see why we're debating this now. You didn't get a warning for being offensive. You got it because you came here with malicious intent to provoke. That’s why you received it. I never even mentioned that you should apologize. I simply noted that you hadn't.

But here, you wrote that I got a warning because I didn't apologize to Charles Fox10:

Quote:

Since I haven't received an apology—and I certainly don't see one from you, Charles Fox10—consider this a formal warning. If you want to contest this, go ahead and file an appeal following the rules outlined in this PDF. Michelle Evans said:Because apologizing shows you actually realize you were wrong. Yours was clearly out of line, yet you still act like there isn't a problem or that you weren't being needlessly provocative. No one is obligated to engage with threads filled with that kind of behavior. Why on earth would I apologize to Charles Fox10 just because you demanded it? You're basing this whole thing on an insinuation and a flawed conclusion you reached without even checking with me first. Isn't that the exact same mistake you're accusing me of making? I’ll apologize to Charles Fox10 if he tells me he felt insulted and asks for one. Michelle Evans said:No, I am simply moderating this forum to ensure appeals remain civil and free from unnecessary provocation. That was pure advocacy right there. You jumped in before Charles Fox10 even spoke up and attacked a completely irrelevant point—one you misinterpreted in the first place. My position is perfectly clear. In fact, you should be the one apologizing to me to prove you realize how misplaced your approach was.

Michelle Evans said:To put it simply—one last time, and this is the final word from me:
So, you actually went ahead and filed an appeal? Really?
In your opening remarks, you went ahead and linked someone's current ban directly to a failure to keep their word—all without doing a single shred of fact-checking. Seriously? That isn't an observation. It’s a provocation.

In response to my opening point, you jumped straight to linking someone’s current ban to a failure to keep promises—without doing any actual fact-checking. Seriously? That isn't an argument. It's just pure provocation. ☕

Michelle Evans said:Complaints like that? They’re just asking to get slapped with a permanent ban or shut down entirely. Is that really how you want to play this?
You didn't offer a single shred of explanation for that, even after I specifically asked you to.
You’ve been issued a penalty, strictly according to the rules.
Hey there!

I couldn't care less about that card of yours. Honestly? I don't give a damn. What I actually care about is getting Charles Fox10 to explain these double standards. I see Charles Fox10 already replied to John Wayne, so I’m going to jump in right here and build on that.

Charles Fox10 says:

It’s pathetic, really. You and your buddy are out here chanting for a miracle that isn't coming—a cardboard solution that simply doesn't exist and never will. You keep pointing back to those previous examples, but let’s be honest: those comparisons are completely absurd. They don't even belong in the same conversation. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. Technically speaking, everyone knows what happened to Kir and Paradžik. That's established fact. But this whole situation regarding V. Nazor? That actually required some due diligence. A little investigation wouldn't have hurt.

Charles Fox10, how exactly did Kir and Paradžik end up killed? It’s definitely not common knowledge, and I'm pretty sure the rest of the group is just as in the dark as I am.

Look, that guy whose username starts with a K didn't actually accuse anyone of anything. He didn't even hint at anyone being guilty. All he did was state the obvious—that those two, along with a few others, didn't commit suicide. He just quoted the other user's post, which, in my opinion, was clearly trolling by bringing up Tuđman. And yet, the whole thing was wiped out. Why?

That user is being incredibly blunt about it. He’s practically shouting from the rooftops that Tuđman is directly responsible for what happened to Kir and Paradžik. Sure, you went ahead and scrubbed those posts, but I’ve already saved them. Why hide the truth? People deserve to see this:

The first thing vividfox89 wrote was:

If things had actually gone that way, Tuđman should have just wiped out dozens of those different Victors, Borises, and Igors back in the nineties. Is that really how you think it should have worked? He ought to have cleared them all out.

The user replied to that like this:

What kind of Kir types or Paradžik clones would even go and kill themselves like that...

This is a blatant insinuation—as clear as day—that Tuđman ordered the hits on Kir and Paradžik. It’s just classic Kumek’s passive-aggressive trolling style.

It’s basically like this: Person A says, "If that were true, it should have been raining all day." And Person B replies, "Well, the streets have been soaked since morning for no reason..."

And while hr1u00 gets banned for a tiny, harmless hint suggesting V. Nazor was involved in tearing down some monuments in California, Kumek faces zero consequences for making malicious claims that Tuđman is responsible for murders. He gets full moderator protection wrapped up in nonsensical explanations that insult anyone with half a brain. To top it off, there's the glaring difference in reputation: hr1u00 is known here as someone who actually provides solid arguments, whereas Kumek is just a pure troll who drops these snide, bar-room taunts without ever backing them up.

If you political mods actually had a balanced approach to moderation, Kumek would have been permabanned ages ago, and users like hr1u00 or Martian7 wouldn't be getting slapped with so many warnings.

It’s funny when a colleague writes an appeal claiming something is "common knowledge," yet you haven't a clue. You could at least make the effort to double-check. Once I did, I realized they were right, even if I still don't buy some of their logic.

By that same logic, you could look into who was actually responsible for the deaths of Paradžik and Kir to find out what's "common knowledge"—and track the legal proceedings all the way through those various pardons.

You ever notice how other posts hint at suspicious circumstances surrounding the deaths of Paradžik, Barešić, and Kraljević on this exact same topic? Take a look; they're right here. Then ask yourself why those insinuations don't bother you, while everyone else's do. It helps to apply the same standards to everything; you might be taken more seriously.

I'm done with this pointless debate.