Congrats, you've managed to break the mold. You should get a gold star for getting anti-Trump content deleted on that sub. Unless you are on their shitlist for some reason... Oh, that's why. Your account looks like an account made to avoid a ban.

>Can't someone make a decent reddit alternative already That would be nice. I find the format that reddit uses with threads and subthreads excellent for discussion, a single thread sorted by time just doesn't work as well for that. I haven't seen any alternatives that do the same and aren't constantly being infiltrated by larping leftists trying to smear the site.

Well I wasn't expecting that. It is about time, next should be topminds and then ahs. If they quarantine/ban those two as well, I'll at least believe they can pretend to be unbiased.

That is real funny because they were quarantined because they didn't censor *enough* and because leftists like you kept creating accounts and posting things that were against the sitewide rules in old posts that few people read. Of course, instead of pressing the report button, those posts where directly linked to the admins so the mods didn't even know about them.

Being able to say something without getting banned does not make a sub neutral. That sub is a shit storm. Once upon a time it was fine, now there is a ton of brigading and people who actively search for and downvote moderately right leaning opinions.

If someone advocating violence towards a group based upon political beliefs and they are doing so on a subreddit and then being banned from that subreddit is a silly standard, we won't ever come to an agreement. *Especially* if you keep in mind sitewide rules prohibit calls to violence. As for a personal vendetta, I hadn't talked to the mods before I sent them the modmail in the images. I didn't have any issues other than they were imo far too permissive with people who were blatantly on the sub to brigade. (ChapoTrapHouse is where most of them were from with posts *on that sub* linking to posts in the Peterson sub.) As for willfully misinterpreting them, I strongly disagree. I don't see why they would feel a need to bring up JBP's comments unless they were trying to communicate a *reason* to not take any action. Especially since he didn't make the comments on the sub, nor was he even half as clear in his statement as the person the modmail was about. IIRC the closest he got was something along the lines of "I think we may need to start thinking about using violence against those who completely refuse to engage civilly." So even the example itself would have passed most rules relating to advocating for violence. That is why I think the mods were just trying to cover the ass of JBP as broadly as they could. (Which he wouldn't be happy about as he does not approve of people who follow others blindly.)

If you check you might notice the part that lead to me getting banned was answering their questions honestly. Had they not responded with "Is that a threat" I wouldn't have said anything more to them. So if answering a direct question with minimal to no fluff is antagonism (rule 5, which is why I was banned) then that's fine. A super shitty rule, but fine as long as they apply that level of stringency equally. The problem is that they *weren't*. As for modding ideologically, that is *exactly* what this is. They brought up the person the sub is based around (sort of) advocating for a very similar thing as the person I was calling out. They said, if they applied that rule, they would have to ban JBP. That is a pretty clear ideological bias if you ask me. They had a motivation to "protect" their "leader" but they had to break sitewide rules in order to do so.

I know right? They weren't even willing to give a warning. And they said that saying someone should be punched is still *civil.* All I really wanted was for the moderators to actually start moderating the sub. There are a few users on there (the one who I contacted them about is the worst imo) who consistently argue in bad faith and straight up lie in order to convince people. This was the most blatant example of any them breaking sitewide rules that I've seen.

Actually the person I brought to their attention is of the opposite end of the political spectrum from them. (Possibly, I think it likely someone is masquerading as what they are not.) The problem is that they are defending the person as they don't want to be hypocrites but they don't want to have to ban Jordan Peterson. (Which is a stupid position in the first place as people shouldn't be banned for what they do off the subreddit, let alone offsite. Even then, the source they provided has several credible explanations for why what he is doing is *not* a call to violence, or at least not intended as one.) So I wouldn't call them hypocrites. Just shitty mods who are refusing to even warn people. Actually, I don't think I've ever seen them warn *anyone* on that sub. (I don't think I saw enforcement of any kind on that sub.) You are absolutely right about them threatening their own sub. If it wasn't me, it was going to be someone else. I at least would have been on the side of the subreddit. Generally you can't expect that.

Oh fuck off. You don't know me. This is literally the first time I've sent a modmail to anyone on reddit. And I guarantee I would be less likely to ban people than you. The person was blatantly breaking *sitewide* rules and that specific sub has had major moderation issues for awhile now. I went through the proper channels and when it became apparent that the mods were refusing to follow the rules of the site, I reported them. Idgaf if they are removed from their positions. I just want them to do a better job. So get off your high horse, stop projecting and grow up.

You mean when I informed them I had already sent a message to the admins? That line of logic goes over *great* in the real world. It makes lawyers drool.

To be fair I posted a near identical version of this post to that sub. I then got muted for linking this album in the response to the ban.

Nice. I also got banned from one of the other subs moderated by /u/antiquark2

Rather crazy actually. Of all the things to ban someone for this has got to be one of the more stupid ones.

I guess the 48 laws of power is a self help book. Who knew.

Show your comment that got removed if you want anyone pay attention.

Maybe you should show what you posted that led to you being banned...

As much as you may hate to hear it, your response to the mods makes it sound like you were *trying* to get banned. It is hard for me to care about your "predicament" when that is the case. If I were a betting man I'd bet that you have quite a few posts that push the limits of their rules. In that case it would be rather difficult to say you broke a specific rule in a specific post. At most you could be called "toxic" or "disruptive". But, I'd bet you were *trying* to appear that way. I may not be a fan of places that ban outside of their rules, but I do understand that some people try their hardest to meet the letter of the law while completely ignoring the spirit. In those cases I find it understandable to ban a user who repeatedly pushes the limits. After all, it *is* a privately moderated community. Besides, if /r/politics can do it with no repercussions why is it as big of a deal in a smaller community? Or is the difference that you just can't handle differing opinions? Also, uncensored *news*, not uncensored *comments*. So don't try to say they are being hypocritical.