Harassing the moderators

So, within this relentless barrage of penalties handed down to me by X (the sole moderator who has seen fit to target me over the past year), the most recent one stands out as particularly egregious.

Specifically, I have been slapped with a 100-point infraction and a ban lasting nearly a month, accompanied by a threat of restricted access on the FBI site—even though, in all honesty, I haven't even received more than two infractions since I joined this platform, and one of those two is this very one. He even went so far as to impose a restriction after my first infraction on that PDF. Is it not blindingly obvious that this entire vendetta is driven by nothing more than petty, personal motives?

This month-long ban is merely the latest in a series; the first was a week-long suspension with a 500-point penalty in the politics section, and the second was also on this same topic, lasting fourteen days with a 100-point penalty. On both occasions, I filed a formal appeal with the oversight committee, yet predictably, absolutely no action was taken.

Previous bans: 1 and 2

X hit rock bottom a long time ago, but I find myself wondering why the rest of the moderation team and the administration allow such behavior to persist. If there are rules meant to govern the users of this forum, should those same rules not apply to the moderators themselves, rather than allowing them to dole out infractions and bans whenever they feel a sudden whim to do so?

The following is the post that resulted in a 100-point infraction and a ban of nearly a month.

X said:Dear Anthony Hill5,

You have received an infraction at Reddit.

Reason: Replying to a post from 2014 with the intention of provoking. Final infraction before restriction.
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 100 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=96874477

Quote: X said:That is why it can be observed how Americans became suddenly restrained after their initial push, while the Russians grew emboldened and threw the dice, suggesting that the true target of the attack was Putin's presidential plane.

I would argue that the situation is not quite that simple.

It is not just "not simple"; it is incredibly complex.

Following the initial push, investigators nonetheless have strong indications that Putko personally approved the deployment of the Buk to Ukraine, which was used to shoot down MH17.

Strong indications ’ Putin personally approved The decision to providjeti separatists in Ukraine with The missile that Shot down The Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in 2014

(CNN)There are "strong indications" that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally approved The decision to providjeti separatists in Ukraine with The missile that Shot down The Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in 2014, Dutch investigators Said Wednesday.

Citing intercepted telephone conversations by Russian government officials, the Public Prosecution Service's Joint Investigation Team Said There were " strong indications that in Russia , The President made The decision about The provision of The Buk-TELAR to separatists of The DPR," or the self-declared Donetsk People's Republic, in eastern Ukraine.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/08/europ...ntl/index.html

All the Best,
Reddit

What exactly is so controversial about my post? This thread has spanned twenty pages since its inception; the final entry before I revived it was penned back in 2019 when it was locked, or rather in 2020 when Oštrić saw fit to reopen it.

Furthermore, what rule is being violated by quoting a post from 2014? If the interface provides a quote function for that specific entry, does that not imply that quoting it is permitted under the established rules?

Or is the actual issue here that the trolling directed at Andrew at that time was such an egregious falsehood that the post is being deleted simply because it no longer serves his convenience?

The post remained live for two full days without a single user reporting it or any other moderator removing it, all before the individual in question finally laid eyes on it.

If a person is incapable of standing behind their own words and opinions, or lacks the fortitude to defend them, then perhaps they have no business participating on this forum at all. Is it truly considered a provocation to present a reasoned argument supported by a direct link to prove someone wrong? One would think not.

I am requesting that the rest of the FBI moderation team issue a formal statement regarding this matter, particularly concerning the threat of a partial ban. Even if that threat originated from Andrew himself, it is quite excessive.

@nica

Why hasn't this post been published?

It has already been twenty days since this ridiculous penalty was handed down to me, so I am truly indifferent as to whether my ban will be shortened or if I must serve its full duration.

I fail to grasp what exactly constitutes "trolling" in my commentary regarding Syria, nor can I fathom what this infamous "jumping in" refers to; given that it is common knowledge that dogs jump on females during mating, the very use of such terminology by the moderation team feels inherently insulting.

To return to the crux of the matter and the penalty itself: I was slapped with 100 points and a one-month ban simply because I was providing reasoned rebuttals to the assertions made by a certain colleague from the counter-world faction.

Regarding the Syria thread, I find myself in the minority as one of the few individuals who refuses to support the criminal and genocidal policies of Assad, which results in me being attacked by the majority in a pack-like fashion; then, after I have responded to everyone without a single insult, I am accused of "jumping in and multi-day trolling" through some sort of mental gymnastics. A quick review of the last few pages clearly demonstrates that it is my colleagues who engage in debates with me, rather than the other way around, and that my posts are substantiated with arguments and links whenever possible.

For instance, a colleague from the opposing side was the first to quote my post and began a series of replies that dealt primarily with conspiracy theories or, at the very least, factually inaccurate claims; furthermore, he was the one who initiated the trolling regarding Mexico, not I.

And what is the epilogue to this discussion? A user who is the first to enter a debate with me and who actively trolls without providing a single shred of supporting information receives a two-day ban, yet I, having concluded the debate with the words "I really don't feel like it...", receive a one-month ban.

After I abandoned any further discussion, X appeared and dumped 100 points and a month-long ban on me, while that same colleague continued in a purely performative, trolling tone on a thread about Israel just two days later:

https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=7379

And then, once again, back to the Syria thread with the same repeated propaganda that has already been debunked countless times:

https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=3059

To claim that a criminal who has displaced two-thirds of the population enjoys the support of the people is utterly loathsome.

To speak of "what kind of prisons should exist" after images of thousands of tortured and murdered people have leaked from Assad's prisons, and to not punish this, is a disgrace.

People who condemn crimes are punished, while those who justify or deny them are rewarded.

I believe that this style of moderation, where a single moderator takes it upon himself to hand out month-long bans without consulting the other moderators, leads nowhere. Personally, I have spent nearly three months under ban since the beginning of the year, and it was entirely undeserved, solely because X believes he has the right to penalize me whenever he feels like it out of personal animosity toward me. Partiality will not stand, yet the "master" has decided to silence me with month-long bans and penalties of several hundred points.

You are all free to review all my penalties together and ask yourselves why, in the last more than a year, I have not received a single penalty from any other moderator, but only from the abrasive and vengeance-seeking X.

For a long time, I have witnessed double standards from the moderation and administration—specifically, the selective application of rules and the invention of new forbidden terms on the fly just so X can slap me with a ban and a penalty, yet none of you takes any action.

Here is an example from you.

A colleague who voiced the exact same grievance I did saw his appeal upheld, resulting in both his ban and his strike being wiped clean, yet somehow my situation remains unchanged.

https://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=1318635

My own appeal regarding this very same issue was processed just like any other, yet where is the justice in the outcome?

https://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=1096

I am glad to see that the Syria topic remains a total viper's nest of Putin supporters and Assad loyalists, just as it was when I stopped reading it five or six years ago for that exact reason. And how could it be any different? 🤷

cosmicgull52 said:Glad to see the whole Syria topic is still just a total snake pit for Putin supporters and Assad fans, pretty much the same reason I stopped posting about it 5 or 6 years ago. Can't say I'm surprised. 🤷

Yeah. Even from a quick glance, you can see the blatant cheering for our enemies and all that Putinophilia. Gross.

I don't think this kind of stuff should even be allowed, hiding behind the usual excuses about "free dialogue" and "hearing both sides." If people actually care about that, they can go hang out on Eastern news sites and forums... ☕

It might be a bit hypocritical to go after those FREE THINKERS now, especially since you let them run wild for ten years with the active help of certain mods.

Andrew, the mission is officially over.
From here on out, you can finally speak your mind without holding back.