It basically reiterated the "don't be a dickhead" rule, I.E. Don't be a dickhead to people who are taking part in the boycott.

• What Mod tried to change the forum rules?
• Do you believe this Mod acted alone?

As for the 2nd paragraph, I too could also talk a lot of trash about certain previous Mods, on the forums, but I tend to avoid doing that despite having numerous things I could say. Neutrality when issuing a moderation or deciding on a ban or warning has not been thrown out of the window at all, in fact it's quite the opposite lately where we've let people get away with far more than we did in the past.

• What Mods have stated that they have ulterior motives for holding Modship?

Few pages back we had a user saying the Mods are too harsh, right after that we had people saying the Mods are too light and have became more complacent (aka changed), now we have you saying we haven't changed. Can't win, but that difficult balance is something you should understand as a former Mod, or you could shit talk us instead, Lmao.

• What Mod has banned someone purely because they don't like someone?

And don't give me a user that has been banned with a clear rule break, Lol.

I'll speak from personal experience but I find that I often end up debating with people instead of moderating them, even when they do clear rule-breaks, I've been told multiple times that I should stop debating with these people (by other users on the forums!) and just ban them. Are there users I like more than others? Of course, and you're talking out your arse if you say that you were totally emotionless as a Mod, but does that mean I will ban people? No, I won't do anything unless they actually break the rules.

Even when people directly flame me I don't tend to moderate them, I only moderate when they flame others, Lol.

And I can honestly say that I think all my team acts in the same way as I do, in that they don't just go around banning people they dislike.

"Don't be a dickhead to people taking part in a boycott."

No, but feel free to openly celebrate a 36yr old widow, 3yr old daughter and 1yr old son who no longer have a father. Mods will even defend your justifications for doing so.

Morally bankrupt.

Which Mods defended someone for celebrating Kirk's death?

The basic gist of what most of us has said is that murder isn't acceptable but people have very real and valid reasons for thinking Charlie Kirk was a horrible person, is mentioning the fact that Charlie Kirk was a terrible human being us cheering on his murder? No it isn't. But we're not going to force people to be sad about his death or prevent them from talking about how his bigoted commentary directly affected them.

Having different opinions doesn't make someone a horrible person. Your attempt to label him that way is your overt attempt at justifying reactions which should be considered inhumane.

You're an intellectually dishonest hypocrite.

The ones most vocal about the danger of labels and how they dehumanise people to the point of justifying violence, are always the ones who propagate them the most.

I feel deja vu to the point I'm sure I've had to state that here before. Says something.

Btw the reason we locked that thread was because.

1. There was an odd comment here and there which did lean too much into celebrating Kirk's death.

2. The thread wasn't generating anything good, half of the site is at each others throats and we're heading towards a split.

3. The thread was starting to push users away from the site, there was an example right before the lock.

4. The thread was full of "LEFT WING VIOLENCE AT IT AGAIN/THE LEFT ARE SO VIOLENT" accusations with zero proof.

Quite frankly, if it was actually Moderated, I could see reasons to Moderate a lot of users in that thread, then we'd have people bitching at us for that instead (and ironically, another example of how relaxed our moderating is lately). We are far too relaxed with #4 in particular, that is users posting inflammatory accusations with zero evidence in highly sensitive thread, we are well within the rules to moderate people for that, and I'm seeing too much of this lately, "I heard XYZ but I don't know if it's true" "XYZ DID IT!" with no evidence.

Charlie Kirk celebrated when Nancy Pelosi's husband was put in the hospital, and called the perpetrator a patriot. 

Kirk said that children should be watching executions.

Are you going to call him out too? 

Difference of opinions? The dude was a bigot, and that makes him a horrible person, Lol.

It's not my issue that you clearly haven't bothered to read any of his comments over the years.

Skim through the US Politics thread and you'll see only half of the examples with sources

I'm tired of repeating them for the 20th time because people can't do their own research.

Why do I need to call out a dead person? I never promoted him when he was alive. Whatever he did that you claim is so horrific (and I've seen most cases debunked already), he's already gone and it's his family left behind to suffer. Doesn't take much human decency to understand that and respect what they're going through.

The fact that you prioritise proving your own viewpoints over respecting basic humanity says everything about you.

This isn't about me. I don't agree with it. 

But I can also understand that some people are happy, because Kirk has caused harm to them indirectly.

Understanding something, doesn't mean that I agree with it or think that it's good.  

I think if you care about violence, you need to call out all of it. Otherwise you're being intellectually dishonest.