Everyone has equal right to walls of text trying to debunk. If they are on topic we call that free speech. Nothing is truly "spam" here because you solicit it by participating, but some things are off-topic enough to be loosely called spam, and everyone has an equal right to that. To whatever degree rules against off-topic contribs are enforced, they are enforced equally.
Everyone has equal right to "cry" to global mods, whether or not the motive is to censor opposition. If this were actually a censorship platform at the admin level I would've left long ago. Equal enforcement of rules isn't censorship; only rules against particular content are censorship, but the rules here are not content-based.
So it looks like you've proven that nobody can control the narrative because every contributor has equal rights. Mods and admins have power to control narrative via unjust or imbalanced enforcement, but that's not going on here, and if it were we'd just demonstrate it's happening and take fitting action as a community.
Interpretation of rules is a community endeavor. I proposed interpretations of existing rules that allow objective determination. If you think rules like "be respectful" are less prone to abuse than specifications like "no namecalling", you're free to participate in interpretation.
Walls of spam trying to "debunk"
Crying to global mods to censor opposition
It's that simple.
Everyone has equal right to walls of text trying to debunk. If they are on topic we call that free speech. Nothing is truly "spam" here because you solicit it by participating, but some things are off-topic enough to be loosely called spam, and everyone has an equal right to that. To whatever degree rules against off-topic contribs are enforced, they are enforced equally.
Everyone has equal right to "cry" to global mods, whether or not the motive is to censor opposition. If this were actually a censorship platform at the admin level I would've left long ago. Equal enforcement of rules isn't censorship; only rules against particular content are censorship, but the rules here are not content-based.
So it looks like you've proven that nobody can control the narrative because every contributor has equal rights. Mods and admins have power to control narrative via unjust or imbalanced enforcement, but that's not going on here, and if it were we'd just demonstrate it's happening and take fitting action as a community.
You cross the line at trying to create new rules that you don't have the right to create.
Interpretation of rules is a community endeavor. I proposed interpretations of existing rules that allow objective determination. If you think rules like "be respectful" are less prone to abuse than specifications like "no namecalling", you're free to participate in interpretation.