Double standards!

Even though every user here should be treated with the same level of fairness, unfortunately, that isn't what's happening.

Forum Rule 6 serves as clear evidence of how regulations can be applied selectively, targeting only those specific individuals who happen to rub the moderators the wrong way. While the rule itself lacks any real clarity, it seems to function as a rather sneaky and calculated tool used to suppress anyone who disagrees with the moderation team regarding historical events, historical figures, or just general life perspectives.

I think it might be helpful to provide a few examples, although there are countless others.
My own post was penalized under the claim that the link wasn't sufficiently summarized or something similar. However, if you look at a vast number of other posts that violate this exact rule much more directly, it seems no one felt the need to step in.

There are thousands of other posts on this forum written in this exact manner. At least I made an effort to include a brief explanation of what the links contained, yet we can see how these other users post without issue.

I suppose I have to ask how this can be justified. Is there any real explanation for this kind of discrimination that resulted in my 15-day ban? Why does this rule seem to apply only to me, even though I didn't really break it by providing a short summary of the link's content?

I guess I wonder who I am bothering, and why I am being singled out.

The silence is deafening. I guess ignoring something is just another way of admitting it's true.

I believe I have just demonstrated the ongoing discrimination that has been directed toward other forum members for quite some time now. This situation serves as confirmation that you no longer possess any credibility when it comes to discussing rules or individual rights. The leadership here is, I guess, largely unprofessional—with a few exceptions, perhaps.

It's honestly shameful. You all deserve all the credit for this.
We have to put an end to this autocrat.

rapidskipper8 said:STOP THE AUTOCRAT!

Stop what?...

Did his car break down on him?

hollowtrucker77 said:did his car run out of gas?

Got it now, thanks 👍

Go ahead and keep trolling this thread if you want, but don't lose any sleep over sanctions; I doubt you'll ever see them coming. Honestly, it’s a bit sad that most of you don't even grasp the basic definition of an autocrat. I can't really help you there, other than maybe suggesting you spend a little more time actually educating yourselves.

rapidskipper8 said:Keep trolling if you want, but don't sweat the sanctions—it’s not going to happen. Honestly, it's a shame you don't actually know what an autocrat is. I can't help you there, other than suggesting you spend more time educating yourselves...

I'm not trolling, I just don't understand your language.
If you want people here to understand you, you need to speak their language...

rapidskipper8 said:While all forum members ought to be treated with equal fairness, unfortunately, that is simply not the case here.

I fail to see why you are letting this get under your skin. It is an exercise in futility; what purpose does it serve to fret? My advice to you is to stop reporting posts just because they contain insults. Simply ignore them. Do not engage, and do not give them your attention. When you file a report, most of the time they merely delete the content without issuing any actual penalties or warnings—and we both know exactly who I am referring to. In fact, the more of these instances occur on the forum, the better.
You surely realize how much more interesting it will be when those types of comments can be found across all 500 sections of the board.

Morgan Carter said:I don't really get why you're getting so worked up about this. It doesn't seem to make much sense. I suppose you won't achieve anything by staying upset. What I would suggest is just to stop reporting posts that contain any kind of insults. Maybe just ignore them instead. Don't bother replying or giving them any attention at all. Because when you report things, most of the time they just delete the post without actually issuing any warnings or penalties (you know who I mean). I guess the more stuff like that there is on the forum, the better.
You probably realize how great it'll be when certain things can be read across 500 different sections of the forum.

The issue is that I am constantly being banned because of this dictatorship. I keep getting these senseless penalties that are basically just an excuse because I called the dictator a criminal.
But I suppose ignoring Nick and Striker is definitely the right move. Just keep in mind where you are; it's only just become clear to me.

rapidskipper8 said:The issue is that I am constantly being banned due to this dictatorship. I keep receiving senseless penalties that serve as nothing more than an excuse because I called the dictator what he actually is.
However, the way Nick and Striker are being ignored is truly commendable. Just keep in mind where you are; it is only now becoming clear to me.

Look. You need to watch how you post for a while until your points drop down to about 100. Pay close attention to the technical requirements, such as those rules regarding links.
You cannot compare yourself to the others when you aren't on their level🙂. That is simply the reality. You have to accept it and move on. And specifically, do not lower yourself to the level of certain individuals. Just scroll past them.😉

rapidskipper8 said:Professionalism... or the lack thereof.

Morgan Carter said:A................................................. ....................

I don't get it. What exactly are you all complaining about? What's the problem?
Explain yourselves.

It happens—some comments just slip through the cracks without any consequences.
I don't buy the idea that we're being selective about who gets penalized.

rapidskipper8 said:In theory, everyone on this forum should be treated equally. In practice, unfortunately, that isn't the case.

Forum Rule 6 is nothing more than proof that enforcement here is purely selective. It’s a tool used exclusively against anyone the moderators happen to dislike. Because the rule itself lacks any clear definition, it serves as a cunning, underhanded mechanism to silence anyone who dares to disagree with the mods regarding historical events, historical figures, or just life in general.

I’ll list a few more examples. There are countless others.
This one. mine The post got flagged because apparently the link wasn't "summarized" or some other nonsense. But let’s take a look at the massive pile of other posts that violate that rule even more blatantly. Nobody seems to care about those, though. Selective enforcement at its finest.

Thousands of posts on this forum are written exactly the same way. I actually bothered to provide a brief explanation of what those links are about, yet look at how everyone else here writes.

So, how exactly do you justify this? Do you even have an answer for this kind of blatant discrimination? I was slapped with a 15-day ban for it. Why am I the only one being singled out by a rule I didn't even break? All I did was provide a brief summary of what the link contained.

Who am I bothering, and why exactly am I such a nuisance?

I don't think rapidskipper8 got banned just because he posted a link. It was clearly the trolling.

The guy claims he’ll drop some evidence regarding Ahmić, then eventually just posts a link to some news article filled with hearsay and speculation. No actual proof. Gentlemen, if you're going to make a claim, back it up with facts.

Richard Patel21 said:It happens. Some comments just slip through the cracks without any consequences.

True, but this specific post of mine—the one quoting rapidskipper8—doesn't fall into that category.
I stated in my previous post that the link I shared shows how Praljak and his associates are absolutely tearing that witness apart.😍
The post was more extensive than that link suggested. I didn't just drop the URL there for the sake of order.

Furthermore, rapidskipper8 is constantly claiming he’ll prove his point, yet all he does is drop links to ambiguous statements and unverified news stories. If his claims were actually legitimate, providing concrete evidence wouldn't be such an issue.

Here is how one actually presents evidence.
1) The Mujahideen were an integral part of the army in Canada, and Alija Izetbegović absolutely loved them.

2) Numerous crimes committed by those Mujahideen (and local Canadians) against Americans, all wearing the army insignia and driven by extremist Islam. WARNING: Contains violent scenes.

3) Footage from the 1993 Canadian Assembly. (That was when Muslims decided to rename themselves Canadians). You can hear the Canadian leaders discussing their primary enemies and what kind of state they intended to build.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3QkJ7zbZ_4
4) Canadian political and former religious leaders sharing their views on their people and their ties to the Turks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsf3GCwB8os
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-gCPvGg3go

Now, try posting some actual evidence—real footage and official documents.

Terry Reed13 said:I suspect rapidskipper8 didn't just get flagged for posting a link, but rather for trolling.

Furthermore, rapidskipper8 constantly claims he is going to prove something, yet he just provides links to ambiguous statements and unverified news stories. If everything were actually as he describes, I suppose it shouldn't be an issue for him to present clear evidence.

For instance, this is how one should present evidence.
1) The Mujahideen were an integral part of the army in Canada, and Alija Izetbegović was quite fond of them.

2) Numerous crimes committed by those Mujahideen (and local Canadians) against Americans, all while wearing army insignia and under the influence of extreme Islam—CAUTION: BLOODY FOOTAGE.

3) Footage from 1993 from the Canadian Assembly. (At that time, Muslims decided they would be called Canadians). Canadian leaders discuss their main enemies and what kind of Canadian state they envision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3QkJ7zbZ_4
4) Canadian political and former religious leaders express their views on their people and their closeness to Turks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsf3GCwB8os
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-gCPvGg3go

Now, why don't you post some clear evidence, such as videos or official documents?

It wasn't because of trolling, but because rule number 6 was broken. Cuka is the only one who has handed out warnings to me, which suggests this is all based on personal bias.

If you look at how you just posted various links at the bottom of your post, it's interesting. I have received warnings for doing the exact same thing, so I wonder how your post differs from mine? Why was I penalized while you haven't been, and likely won't be?

p.s. I don't intend to debate any of the nonsense you've served up here via these links.

Richard Patel21 said:It happens that certain comments go unpunished.
I don't really agree with the idea that we're being selective about who gets penalized.

This isn't just a one-off thing; it's happening constantly. I only mentioned a few examples earlier, but I could honestly list them forever. In fact, I think maybe 90% of posts containing links should probably be banned, since they aren't any different from my own posts, yet they don't get flagged. At least I made an effort to provide a brief explanation of what the link was about, which I guess follows the rule stating you have to clarify what a link refers to.

Anyone following this thread can see the discrimination happening right in front of them, but I suppose none of the moderators can even bring themselves to admit that's the case.

rapidskipper8 said:It’s not about trolling; it’s about breaking rule number six. Cuka is the only one handing out warnings, which proves this whole thing is personal.

Look at how you just dumped a bunch of links at the bottom of your post. I got warned for doing the exact same thing. What makes your post any different from mine? Why did I get flagged while you’re getting a free pass?

p.s. I have no intention of debating the nonsense I previously posted here via those links.

For God's sake, don't you realize you just dropped two links to news articles written entirely in English? Forum rules and basic common sense dictate that you should provide a few sentences explaining what they are, especially for people who don't speak English.

On the other hand, I posted a link to a one-minute video and simply noted that "the guy selling junk" in the clip was tearing apart one of the Army's promoters. What was I supposed to do? Transcribe the entire video?

(Not to mention there isn't even any actual evidence in those two links to support your claims).

rapidskipper8 said:It happens constantly, not just once in a while. I only listed a few examples, but there are endless more. In fact, 90% of posts containing links should be banned because they aren't any different from my own, yet they stay up. At least I bothered to provide a brief explanation of what the link actually contains, following the rule that you have to know what a link refers to.

Anyone reading this thread can see the discrimination happening in real-time, but not one moderator can even bring themselves to admit it.

You should have been banned for trolling in that post.
You claim to be providing evidence, when in reality, it’s just some low-level amateur writing where someone claims they "heard" something. And honestly, that ridiculous crime you mentioned isn't even the main point; it was just a passing remark.

Don't talk about discrimination. It just reveals your true colors.

Terry Reed13 said:Man, don't you see that you just posted two links to newspaper articles and they're both in English? Forum rules and basic common sense suggest you should explain in a few sentences why you're posting them and what they're about, since there are people here who don't know English.

On the other hand, I posted a link to a one-minute video and wrote that "the guy selling junk" in the video is absolutely destroying one of the Army's promoters. What was I supposed to do? Summarize everything said in the clip?

I provided a description of what the link was about. My point now is, if that isn't enough to satisfy Rule 6, then why aren't others being treated the same way? What can I say about this post—why hasn't it been penalized?
For example, in your last post, you included five different links but gave only one sentence of explanation, yet I've received warnings from Cuka for posts identical to yours. Isn't that just double standards? Just be honest.

No, you didn't need to recap everything in the link. To me, that wouldn't be breaking the rules because the rule states you just need to know what the link refers to. The issue is that I have been penalized for similar content, while you haven't, nor has anyone else.

rapidskipper8 said:I provided context for the link. If that isn't enough to satisfy Rule 6, why aren't others being treated the same way?
Look, in your last post you dropped five links with nothing but a single sentence of explanation, yet I’ve taken warnings from Chuck for posts identical to yours. Isn't that a double standard? Just be honest.

No, you didn't need to summarize the content of the link. In my view, that doesn't violate the rules; the rule just requires that the subject of the link is clear. The issue is that I've been penalized for similar content while you, and everyone else, have been let off easy.

For God's sake, don't you get it? The whole point of posting links is to facilitate discussion, which means everyone needs to know exactly what they're looking at.

Linking to an English article versus an American one isn't the same thing. A video isn't the same as a text file. When you bring outside material into this, that material needs to support the conversation and clearly show its relevance.
My links are transparent. It's clear what they cover, and they stay within the scope of the debate. You posted links in English claiming they prove a certain point, but that's simply false. Beyond that, what you were trying to prove wasn't even the main topic of those texts—it was just a passing mention. (In other words, you gave a completely distorted view of what those texts actually say.)

Calm down. Don't be like that guy on political Twitter who drops links to some British drama and tries to pass scenes from a TV show as proof of "bloodthirsty extremists."

Come on, don't talk nonsense; spare me your interpretations. Using English links is standard practice on this forum. I didn't get flagged because the link was in English; I got flagged because I didn't summarize the content of the link. Besides, I've been penalized even when the links were in American.
Your links are just as clear as mine. So, looking at the rules, you actually broke them quite significantly by failing to provide a brief description of what the link contains. Here is what you wrote:

This is how evidence should be posted, for example.
1) The Mujahideen were an integral part of Canada, and Alija Izetbegović absolutely loved them.

2) Numerous crimes committed by those Mujahideen (and local Canadians) against Americans, all wearing army insignia and under the influence of extreme Islam—WARNING: BLOODY SCENES

3) Footage from 1993 from the Canadian Council. (That was when Muslims decided they would call themselves Canadians). Canadian leaders discuss their main enemies and what kind of Canadian state they envision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3QkJ7zbZ_4
4) Canadian political and former religious leaders discuss their views on their people and their closeness to Turks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsf3GCwB8os
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-gCPvGg3go

This is a violation of the forum rules, though you won't be penalized for it. Furthermore, it isn't your place to interpret whether my link's content is truthful or sufficient as evidence. Of course, you're going to claim this is trolling because it mentions crimes committed by Americans against Canadians, but I honestly don't care what you have to say about it. To prevent this thread from turning into a personal argument between us, I guess I'll end it here.