Oh please.Just because YOU think he is a criminal and deserving to be hated, its ok to be harsh with this person?And who dosent agree with you is going against freedom of speech?lol

Imagine if everyone felt the same way as you.Every single foolish idea would be accepted, because its "freedom of speech".

I would say that this is a different situation.While I have no idea what that politician that was mentioned has done, he is not actively trying to kill people, he may be just a bad politician.For terrorists groups, to achieve their goals, they are actively killing people.and terrorizism the different societies of the world.

while I never will be ok with people just straight up writing horrible things as that user did, I would say that those teo situations you proposed are fundamentaly different, and thus have different standards to be judged upon.

Wait a second, hold the presses.. are you saying I have to explain the controversial opinion of a Antonio Banderas meme?

In my opinion, the site either needs to disallow political posts, or lighten up with the moderation on political threads. Political discussions by nature are contentuous. There's going to be harsh language and vitriol. To expect otherwise is unreasonable.

It is also unreasonable to expect people to keep politics out of a discussion about a politician.

I don't disagree with any of that.  My point is just that that's not how the real world works.  

I don't know any of the details of this meme. Just saying that if you act respectfully and justify/unpack any provocative posts, you and anyone else will be able to avoid moderation indefinitely.

If only it works that way 100% of the time that'll be great, but as you said, we're only human.

Okay.  I think that's a bad policy.  

The moderator hasn't changed any rules. Any blatant or repeat infractions of the forum guidelines will result in moderation ranging from a simple warning to lenghty or permanent bans. As the language used in your post was deemed to be over the line of what we were willing to accept in the discussion, considering members of the forum directly spoke about their personal experiences with cancer. Your post was disrespectful to the millions who suffer with cancer, or the millions who know those suffering.

As has already been mentioned, your disrespectful post came after multiple warnings from a moderator to keep John Mccain's politics out of the discussion. The two of these together, while taking your mod history into account (You were recently hit with a 20 day ban for flaming and 44 days this year in total), it's an easy decision to make. Disrespectful, hateful post? Check. Ignoring a moderators warning? Check. Lengthy mod history? Check. Three strikes.

What you need to understand is that this isn't a decision made solely by Super_Boom. The issue was discussed with other moderators and given the green light by the team, just like the vast majority of other decisions made by moderators here.

The same could be said of any major politician, in any major western country. The point is that there is a time and a place for deriding someone, and a thread where people are publically talking about their own experiences with cancer and offering condolences simply isn't that place. If you wish to express your true feelings on the man, then there's many more places on the internet where you can do so.

You seem to be confused regarding the progessive system we use for moderation. We don't ban people selectively. Every member here has a mod history we can look at to judge the length of any impending moderation. To quote - "VGChartz uses a progressive moderation system as a basic guideline for moderating users. This means that repeats of similar offenses will often result in harsher penalties, starting with a warning and working up." The progressive system we use has worked since it was implemented and has been a great help to the team in judging what should be done with specific users. Your own mod history is nothing but either flaming and attacking moderators, so it's no real surprise to see you hit with another ban for something a) coming under the "flaming" umbrella and b) ignoring what a moderator has said.

If anything, the 14 day hit was lenient. I'd have argued that he hit you with 30.

This is all your interpretation, and I don't care to discuss your political opinion. The reason you were moderated is for expressing the belief that someone deserves to die for an opinion you don't agree with. The belief that lawmakers who make decisions impacting the lives of others are equivalent to actual murderers is certainly an unpopular one, which is why you'll find almost no one here (moderators or otherwise) showing tolerance to it.

Your last point doesn't really make sense. Of course, we'll weigh different users differently based on their history. That isn't being selective...it's determining whether or not you are showing signs of being a constructive member of this community. If someone with a clean history made that comment, they would have likely received a warning. With a history like yours...no one saw a need to give you benefit of the doubt, and rightfully so. 

This and that aren't quite the same, though I can understand why this would lead to confusion. Personally, I would draw the line at whether or not one's actions directly cause the death of others, but even then, there is some gray area.

That being said, gray areas like this are why we have a team of moderators that convene to make these decisions. While it's not apparent from the outside, moderation decisions are nearly always discussed as a group, and the more gray the offense, the more members of the team will generally weigh in.