LogFAQs > #911077470

A week ago I posted a topic titled "Violent Antifa Members assault proud boys in NY, get rekt and arrested," which was supported by articles like this posted within the topic:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-searching-men-involved-brawl-wing-proud-boys/story?id=58500791
http://bedfordandbowery.com/2018/10/inside-the-proud-boy-event-that-sparked-violence-outside-of-uptown-gop-club/

By all accounts Antifa arriving, vandalizing a building, openly harassing and striking the first blow led to a brawl between both sides. That's not really up for debate.
I was then moderated on 10/16 (the topic had been posted on the 13th) for trolling, with a mod saying "This is blarantly a misrepresentation of events. Characterising events in a fraudulent manner is trolling."

At no point had I mischaracterized events. On the 13th I reported the story as it was reported in the news. Which is what I do.
Now, fast forward a little bit and New York City has gone on to arrest members of the Proud Boys involved in the fight as well. I disagree with this, but I understand why they're doing it. A fight is a fight, but I believe the Proud Boys can and should claim self defense. There would have been no violence had Antifa not shown up. By the way, Antifa has been labeled a domestic terrorist group:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antifa-domestic-terrorists-us-security-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html

At what point did we start defending terrorists?
Normally I'll take an NKL moderation on its head, but this was a clear-cut case of censorship. Exactly what did I misrepresent? I linked multiple articles within the topic itself that back up everything posted.
"I feel this is an overreach of power using the moderation platform to push a political agenda, and if you disagree I think it's fair to argue a point, but again - I've used fact-based evidence to back up every argument I made, including arrest data," I responded.

The moderator responds, "The Proud Boys were the clear aggressors in the incident. Stating otherwise has no reason other than to to attempt to provoke people."

I respond: "The Proud Boys were not the aggressors in this incident, and I'm not looking to provoke people. Have you read up on the issue? Antifa showed up, vandalized the building, and harassed people for hours. No fights would have broken out had Antifa not shown up and started the fights.

Again, this will likely need to be escalated. You can't allow your political opinion, especially when you don't seem to understand what happened in a situation, affect your ability as a moderator."

This was then escalated to a lead moderator, who writes, "Being that multiple Proud Boys members are currently charged with felony gang assault over this, it's clear to say your views on this issue are not in line with reality. Please do not intentionally post false information on GameFAQs."

There's two points to be made here. The first is that at the time I posted (and the time I was moderated), no Proud Boys members had been charged with felonies. The second is that I still contend this violence was started, escalated, and altogether created by Antifa. Those are my views on the subject, and as this is an ongoing case, no side can claim to be 100% correct. It can, however, be argued or debated.

With that in mind I have to ask, is it a moddable offense now to hold conservative views on GameFAQs? Is the GameFAQs moderation staff unable to remain unbiased and deems it fit to censor conservative voices on the site when their views are challenged? What exactly is moddable about posting information backed up by articles and discussing it with others?
I'll be reporting further on this event as it develops, especially if it turns out GameFAQs has become a biased political entity.
---

http://www.youtube.com/channeljorp - Catch me on Youtube
https://www.twitch.tv/channeljorp - Or on the Twitch