Ah well now I can comment.

I don't think taking a day is excessive. Not everyone is on all the time and its an unpaid job.

But that should have been a much longer ban. Most likely permanent. I don't believe we ever did permanent for first infraction (if that was) but that is extreme enough.

And while I'm not going to infer the motives, completely reasonable for someone to see that and accuse the mod team of bias.

As someone who identified as republican, calling for my murder, no a week was not remotely enough. And it wasn't his only comment like that.

But kudos to Pi for finding, at least my name is cleared in that regard. I wasn't making it up. 

edit

Also, via another post, found the part that was extremely offensive.  

* Yes the mods see the comment. It will be discussed.

Good to know we have to discuss calling for murder..  lol, should have been a perma ban immediately, but whatever.  i stand by all my comments.  I don't feel welcome here and haven't in a long time, and this thread (being questioned for something that happened) is a great example.  

In an ideal world users wouldn't know the political leanings of moderators. It's like knowing a referee is a fan of a certain football team and they're officiating. It's an obvious bias issue. This can give the perception a moderator is trying to force their own ideologies and leanings as the only acceptable discourse and present their own subjective opinions as fact. They are right and anyone who believes something different is wrong and immoral.

Of course in practice having your politics completely hidden is pretty much impossible, though some moderators are much less forward than others.

I don't take part in political discussions online, I have the politics topics hidden on here, but that stuff leaks out and the political leanings and biases of some mods is evident. Even worse is they can ban someone and any comment against that ban can then be classed as backseat moderating and also against site rules. So you can't even voice your opposition to a ban they might make.

For simply saying "lmao" to a recent ban I received a message from a moderator including derogatory political language such as "chudsville".

I don't think I should have got a verbal warning in the first place but a warning from a moderator is also no place for them to continue to push their personal politics and use terms like that.

While I don't discuss politics and have never been moderated myself, other than this recent verbal warning in my DMS, and thus the issue here very rarely effects me, it has left me feeling like I don't want to participate in this site anymore.

In light of pi guy posting the clear proof that there were death threats on vgchartz against an entire group of Americans who make up roughly 45% of the US citizenry in a given year, I think we need to go back to his fellow moderator Shadow1980s's "hold your ground" moment earlier in this thread and take stalk of what we're seeing happen here:

1. The original post in this discussion was about a legitimate concern, now echoed by others, that the moderators here are heavy-handed towards right-of-center (or just center) users while giving hall passes galore to those on the left and even far left (see also, below: supporter Leynos).
2. Shadow1980s made it clear that expressing views which are orthodox doctrine for major religious groups (Christians, Jews, Muslims) on the nature of human sexuality will get one banned here on the forum.  To wit, from earlier today: "This was the user deliberately misgendering a game dev"
3. Shadow1980s continues to give similar woke-sympathetic arguments for why others got banned here, before ending with: "This isn't 4Chan, GAF, or any of the other places where it's cool to go around openly hating on marginalized groups. Not one bit of that flies here. We will shut that shit down, no exceptions." (emphasis added)
4. And then we have this...
   
   
   
   Leynos is still posting as of 12 hours ago from the time of my post here.  There have been numerous radical left wing activists, including many alphabet activists, who have murdered Americans from young Christian school kids in Tennessee to conservative activist Charlie Kirk in September 2025.
   
   In other words, a reasonable person would conclude that conservatives, Christians and others who Shadow1980s likes to attack here are indeed, to use the vgchartz's rules, marginalized insofar as Leynos both felt comfortable to post what he did, and none of the moderators banned him for death threats.
   
   
5. So, as others have pointed out, the rules as not clear as Shadow is saying, both in definition and in enforcement consistency...in fact, when I read him stating that you can get banned here for calling someone who says they're a girl a guy, but pi-guy frets about a death threat from a still-active user with "I don't know what the right answer should have been", we have a problem that goes way beyond the typical "rules for thee, but not for me" hypocrisy many of us on the outside have come to expect from the modern Left (see also: Paris, as it burns today)
   

So my questions to both Shadow and pi-guy are:

1. Do we need to get the FBI involved at this point?  Seriously.  
We've had way too many cases of posts threatening to kill people like us in online forums by these activists who follow through with their murderous hatred for those who don't think like they do and no one did anything about it in recent US history.

2. If you're going to host political discussions here either in the politics area or elsewhere, have you taken reasonable steps - such as having a legitimately conservative moderator or two - to balance your own policing and ensure that the rules are enforced in a balanced and defendable manner?  It looks like there are some well-spoken candidates earlier in this thread you could bring on to ensure this doesn't happen again.

---

I'm grateful that pi-guy had the integrity to post the link to the original threats and think that Shadow, in particular, owes us an explanation the next time he's online as to when Leynos will be banned given his other stated banning activity in the last year and what he will personally do to curb the culture he has helped foster here.

If this doesn't get resolved justly and swiftly, I don't it would be unreasonable for someone to pass this situation onto the FBI tips line.  It's that serious.

So... you're upset I didn't just accept what you said without any evidence and wanted to see the context of the situation? *Gasp* The horror. In the future I will believe everything everyone says on the internet to avoid causing such grave offense XD.

The abortion example was a bit of a gamble, but with your response that gamble sure paid off. You said: "Saying I support abortion can not be said to be hateful, toxic, or demeaning to anyone who might be reading that post." Let's put that to the test and substitute one category of people with another. Instead of preborn humans, let's talk about the Sami people from Scandinavia. How does that sound to you: I support the genocide of the Sami people. Yikes. You might disagree of course, saying that abortion is not a genocide. But it is 73 million people murdered per year. To many, a way bigger crime against humanity than the holocaust. Still can't be hateful, toxic or demeaning?

Look, abortion is not even that important to me. It just came to mind, because I know many see it very, very differently than me, to the point that it would not even cross their minds that voicing support for the death of 73 million people per year can be hateful. It is an example to show how "don't be hateful" differs depending on who you talk to and how that is therefore not a good rule. Especially if applied by people who think similar about so many hot button issues. "I support the death of 73 million humans of a very specific and vulnerable group of people, but don't you dare talk about the "lgbqri+ inclusive and diversity direction sony was/is heading in."" (Copied from an example that warranted moderation.) Honestly silly. The double standard is so stark, it is almost a tripple standard.

"That said, if whoever owns this site (if such a person exists) wanted to make a rule that you can't talk about abortion, that's fine by me. If they want to make a site where only anti-abortion stances are promoted, also go for it."
I get that people have the power to create rules and enforce them.

"As for the tired "so much for the tolerant left" bit, tolerance applies to things that are not harming others."
I did not say "left", interesting conclusion though. So we should not be tolerant of things/people/ideologies that do harm others? Let's test that too. And we have the perfect example to do that with. What is your stance on abortion? Harming 73 million people per year by killing them? Or would you rather change your statement above to: "tolerance applies to things that are not harming those people one happens to care about"?

You can make your own rules and apply them as unjustly and unevenly as possible under the guise of tolerance and inclusivity. And you can be tolerant and inclusive. But both? That is not possible.

The overton window has shifted so far right that it has become acceptable for american politicians to say it stinks of curry when they see an indian person pass by, and the people in this thread that proudly label themselves as republicans, are content with that. But just because it has shifted in politics, doesn’t mean it should shift here. The standards as I see them have not changed the past 15 years I have been following this site.
It’s quite frankly very difficult to take it seriously that some of you people feel unfairly targeted, especially when you cannot even come up with concrete examples.

Hmmmm. Abortion is worse than the holocaust. Ok then.

Your initial point was that someone might be offended if they had an abortion and regretted it. You're now moving the goalposts, but I'll chase them for a moment.

The reason I'm posting this is because it is designed to parody the silly position you are trying to argue. You are arguing that it is hateful... to whom? Do you think that I hate fetuses? Like, I just wake up thinking "grrrrr... those damn fetuses are ruinging everything"? Ffs

The group of people who are or were preborn humans is all the humans. Do you genuinely think that there are any people significant number of people who think that all fetuses should be destroyed? Or that we need to kick all of the fetuses out of America so that we can be an all post-born society? Does anyone believe that fetuses are genetically inferior and need to be removed from the gene pool? Arguing that "preborn humans" is a category of humans in the same way Jewish, Sami, or Japanese is is either dishonest or stupid. A more apt analogy would be to ageism, but even that is pretty dumb. 

Supporting genocide, whether of Jewish people or Sami people, is hateful because it is saying that groups of people, members of which still exist incidentally, ought to be put to death. May be an interesting discussion of whether saying like, whether the genocide of the Amolokites was justified is hateful, but I think we are primarily concerned with extant peoples. 

On the other hand, people who support a woman's right to abort a fetus (interesting you are using the term preborn human when we have one that already means that) are not saying they want every fetus destroyed, that they think fetuses are somehow bad or need to be punished, or that they want fetuses to die. It is not demeaning fetuses or hating them. It is simply saying that they are growing in a woman's body and if a woman wants to terminate that pregnancy she ought to be able to. I would say most supporters of abortion would prefer for virtually every fetus to be born. We just don't think it's right to make that decision on behalf of the person doing the birthing.

Just to clarify, in case there is any doubt, I have nothing against fetuses. They're cool with me. I actually prefer them in general to the post-born because a fetus has literally never done anything to piss me off while the post porn are always doing obnoxious shit.

I will though edit my statement on tolerance though to add the word unnecessarily. As in I am not tolerant of things that unnecessarily harm people. There are of course situations where it may be the best course of action to harm someone. For example, if someone were trying to attack you, harming them in self defense would be justified. And since you're clearly trying to be nitpicky, that is not a full summary of my morality, which would probably take more than a forum post to explain, so it's not going to be an airtight definition. 

As for abortion, my stance is that first I think up to a certain point, a fetus is not a conscious being that can not experience harm. Up to this point, I don't have any particular qualm about abortion.

At a certain point, I would probably say there is a conscious being that can be harmed. However, I still would not support a ban on abortion. I believe strongly in bodily autonomy. I think the government telling you what you can do in or to your body is an extreme measure and something we should almost never allow. I don't think there is a coherent way to protect bodily autonomy if we hold that abortion is murder. Should the government be allowed to prevent a pregnant woman from smoking? Drinking? Eating fish? Taking antidepressants? Taking a vaccine? Running on a treadmill? Drinking coffee? If the child is born an needs a kidney should the father be obligated to donate if he can? What about blood?  If I get into a car accident with a woman and she miscarries, did I commit mansalughter? If a woman accidentally eats something that can be harmful to the fetus is she criminally liabile? Suppose a Jehovah's witness who is pregnant needs a blood transfusion or she and the child will die. Should the government force her to take one? If a woman believes in holistic medicine and the government thinks that is harmful to the fetus should they force her into a traditional hospital? 

If you want to say abortion is murder, then how do you justify abortions to protect the life of a mother, which even most anti-abortion people support? There is no other circumstance where you are allowed to commit murder to save someone else. Can a woman abort an ectopic pregnancy? The fetus will be unviable, and the woman will definitely be killed, but if you take the position that the fertilized egg is already a human being then there is no way to justify ending its life such that it is. If you do support abortion in cases where the mother's life is threatened, which is not a consistent  position, who determines when the mother's life is at risk? Any pregnancy involves some degree of risk to the mother, so when is the risk sufficient to end a pregnancy? If a woman's risk of death from a pregnancy is 10% and she decides she does not want to take that risk, can we force her to? 25%? 50%? 

Suppose a fetus is going to be born with anencephaly? Meaning a large part of the brain is missing. The baby is almost certainly going to either be stillborn or die very soon after birth. Is it morally justifiable to force a woman to carry a baby like that to full term, go through the process of birthing it, only to have it die shortly thereafter? If you think abortion is murder, that's what you would have to do to be consistent. But, I would argue that terminating the pregnancy is the most humane thing you can do for all involved.

If a 10 year old girl becomes pregnant due to sexual abuse, is it moral to force her to carry a child to term? Again, if you think abortion is murder, the answer would have to be yes. 

Suppose a woman who needs anti-seizure medications becomes pregnant. Those medications can cause birth defects or the death of the fetus. Should she be allowed to take the medication? Who would decide? Does a doctor need to weigh the risks of the seizures vs the risks of the medication to the fetus? Do we need to get the court system involved? 

Point is, there are lots of difficult questions that come up with abortion. And I don't think the government should be answering those. I think that a woman who is pregnant is the best person to decide, with the help of whatever medical professionals she chooses to help. 

And that is why I support abortion. It's certainly not because I just fucking hate fetuses and want them to suffer, but assuming you have common sense, you already knew that. I'm not interested in defending that position any further, so don't bother arguing it point by point, unless you can show how anything I said demonstrates that I am hateful or demeaning to any group of people. 

Now granted, abortion may still be upsetting to someone. And I get why. And if the forum rules were about not doing anything that may upset anyone, then you may have a point. But they're not.

Oh, and some important context. When I was a mod, do you know how many topics derailed into arguments about abortions? Zero. Absolutely none that I am aware of. Literally never came up. If you were someone who felt strongly about abortion one way or another, you could probably browse the forums fine without worrying about it. So there never has been a reason for mods to seriously consider what is acceptable to discuss in terms of abortion. Meanwhile, there are tons of threads which have nothing inherently to do gender, lbgtq issues, etc., but certain people will bring it up at every possible opportunity. Which is part of the reason why it was moderated so severely, and IMO should be moderated much moreseo. Because we knew that no productive conversation was ever going to come out of it, and it was actively preventing people from talking about videogames. It has now gotten to the point where we can't even discuss the GTA VI trailer without it being a topic about wokeness. Say what you want about resetera, but damn is it refreshing to see a topic where they actually talk about a game rather than arguing about who made the game, if it had too many gay characters in it (which for a lot of people seems to be 1), or whether it was somehow undermining American democracy because the female characters aren't fuckable enough. And of course if there is a trans person who is in the game, involved in making the game, or if a trans person just played the game, obviously nothing else is going to be discussed. And it was virtually never the left wing people bringing it up. So a large part of the moderation policy, when I was involved was just about enabling people to actually talk about videogames.

Say what you want about Resetera, but it is refreshing to see a thread about Wolverine where people just like talk about the gameplay and story and stuff without some incel weirdo ranting about how Lady Deathstrike isn't fuckable enough which is an attempt to destroy the American family. 

So there's my stance. I was a sport and answered your questions, so here are mine.

Based on the above, what specific group of people do I hate? Who am I demeaning? Who will read my post and think that I am saying anything negative about them?

And one last question. 

Suppose poster A says, "I believe a woman should be allowed to have an abortion if she chooses." Suppose poster B says "I think all Japanese fetuses should be forcibly aborted". Are those statements comparable? Which one do you think is more hateful and demeaning? I would hope that contrary to your initial post, you understand that those are very different things one of which actually indicates hatred of a particular group and one of which doesn't.

I think moderation in general has been too tight in this forum over the last several years.  Not terribly so, but definitely, IMO, too strict.  

With regards to political speech in particular, I would say that opinions should be allowed to flow freely in in the political discussion forum.  Serious flaming, and mean-spirited trolling should not be tolerated. But, extreme political opinions should be, even if they're pretty offensive.  It's really not reasonable to constrain political opinions to only those things that are close to the mainstream in a political discussion forum.  There's really no point to even having the forum if you're going to force everybody into some box. 

With all of that said, I opted out of the political discussion forum years ago.  So, I'm really not sure of the climate or culture in there right now. But, I will say that I don't have any issues with offensive or bothersome political speech here, because I use the very simple option to opt out of seeing it.  Everyone should be reminded that this option exists. You don't have to tolerate offensive bullshit. You can turn it off.  But, you don't have to turn it off for everybody else.  

Everyone would also do well to remember that if you don't allow scumbags and assholes to speak, you won't know who the scumbags and assholes are. It's critical to know who the bad guys are.

This applies everywhere, not just in this forum.