That's not what i observe.  What I have noticed is that people demand to be protected when they feel they are under attack.  And that happens when the implication is not obvious.  The rules exist for that reason.  The forum isnt supposed to feel like a place where people have to implicitly know what isn't stated and users aren't expected to just take it on the chin so that prejudices can be dispensed at the expense of other members.  I have zero expectations or desire for people to agree on everything... but implying that feeling attacked is the same thing as forcing a belief doesn't pass the non bias test.  It is not difficult to express a different opinion in a manner that is not abrasive.  

Also, are you saying that someone has requested a ban for someone else for simply saying 'capitalism is better than communism'?  I feel like you are making false equivalencies to actaul legit complaints.  If this really happened then of course its silly.  I once read a comment on here years ago from some expressing that gay people should be killed.  That's what im talking about.  Implicit IMO my ass lol.  

Give me an example of a real life frivolous ban request so I know where you are coming from.  We may be on the same page and I just don't realize it.

Oh I agree that people unfortunately are often abrasive or aggressive in their opinions, all I meant was that stating an contrary opinion in itself isn't inherently an attack and shouldn't automatically be treated as such. I think that's where most problems arise, when people take a difference of opinion as a personal attack.

And no, that was just a random example, not an actual case. And yeah obviously saying gay people (or any people really) should be killed is way beyond the pale, absolutely unacceptable, and should be met with a ban.

Frustratingly I actually don't think I can give specific examples cos I'd risk being moderated myself for repeating things that got people banned, and for backseat moderation. Also, I feel like I kinda shouldn't call out the specific cases and thereby specific people anyway cos I talked to them in private so I think it's better if I let them identify themselves and make their case instead of me saying "oh hey, it was Fred".

I feel like I didn't explain myself well in the prior post, my bad, but what I meant was that stating a belief or acting in accordance with one's beliefs should not be banworthy, unless it's something like directly calling for people to be killed or the like.

Captain can be anti AI, and loud.  Just like Leynos can be anti conservative and loud. 

But calls to violence are WRONG regardless of who and why.

"Kill Republicans"

"We need more luigis"

"I want to blow up data centers"

ALL CALLS FOR VIOLENCE.  

Calling for people to be murdered? Yeah, that's banworthy, completely agreed.

But saying a building should be destroyed, specifically a building that's being used for purposes harmful to society? Nah, I don't think that's banworthy, it's a fucking building, it doesn't have feelings.

It's worth nothing also that he didn't actually say "I am going to blow up a data centre", he just said he thinks it should happen, which isn't strictly a threat or statement of intent.

And let's be real here, captainexplosion, despite his name, isn't going to be blowing up anything, nor will anybody here. He's just venting.

Yes let us be real.  Hs said he "wants" to blow up data centers.  HE DID NOT SAY WISH OR HOPE.

sorry but you are third person to say this.  So yes, let us be real with what he said.  He is also calling for more Luigi style assassination, after saying he wanted to blow me up and after saying he wanted to stab Leynos.

And I have zero idea what his plans are and capabilities.  What I do know is every time there is an active shooter the signs were there, people just ignored them.  

Terrorism is used to incite fear.  Blowing up building would incite fear, so still terrorism.

Also, people um, work in those building, including nigjt time security guards. 

Calls for violence, currently, are acceptable on VG.   Hopefully Shadow fixes this. Because it is disgusting, gross, disgraceful and ugly.

I can't recall the specific post but I don't remember him specifically saying he actually "wants" to, just that he thinks it should happen. That's less "I intend to do this" and more "if it happened, I'd be good with it." I mean, speaking personally, I wouldn't shed a tear if a data centre were to be burned down, but I absolutely do not intend to burn one down myself.

Destroying a building the size of a data centre is an incredibly difficult operation for an individual to pull off, vastly harder than just harming a person, the chances he actually intends to try, much less succeed, seem highly unlikely.

His calls for violence against people were deserving of moderation, absolutely. Property damage doesn't necessitate harming people though; speaking purely hypothetically, you could technically mean doing it when the building's empty/warn people to evacuate.

To be controversial myself however, the purpose of terrorism, as you say, is to incite terror in a population. Conversely, I suspect a lot of the population would actually be pretty happy about a data centre being put out of commission rather than terrorised.

Exact quote:.

"And they call me an extremist for wanting to blow up AI data centers."

No hoping, no wishing.  He clearly states he wants to blow up data centers, which is a call for domestic terrorism.  

So let us keep it real and be honest about what he said.