uqi

diskpart
select disk 2
clean

[uqi @havadaucanates]

@chakerathe seni bağırta çağırta

[rabitto @rabittoke]

@HOI_Game @PdxInteractive @PDX_Dev_Studio @chakerathe

This thread is about what appears to be a serious case of anti-Turkish discrimination and nationality-based double standards in a Hearts of Iron IV community associated with Paradox.

A Turkish player was directly banned from the Discord while using Mustafa Kemal Atatürk — the founder and first President of the Republic of Türkiye — as his profile picture. He was not first politely asked to change it. The Atatürk avatar itself became the basis of the dispute.

When he challenged the ban and asked why Atatürk was supposedly unacceptable, moderators did not simply point to a neutral rule. Instead, Atatürk was described as a “controversial” figure and connected to the Armenian events of 1915, with extraordinarily serious accusations being directed at the founder of the Turkish Republic.

Turkish users then tried to defend Atatürk, challenge those historical accusations and ask why Turkish national identity was being treated differently. According to what we experienced, our responses were removed or hidden, users who objected were banned from the Discord, and the Discord was subsequently closed to new joins, preventing excluded users from returning and responding to the accusations made against them.

We then took the issue to the public Hearts of Iron IV Steam forum. There too, users complained that rebuttals were being removed or suppressed instead of being answered.

https://t.co/ipLKzEYeoy

This is no longer simply about one moderation decision.

It is about whether Turkish players, Turkish historical identity and the founder of the Turkish Republic are being subjected to a different standard from everyone else.

1/ Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is not a hate symbol.

He is the founder and first President of the Republic of Türkiye and the central statesman associated with the creation of the modern Turkish Republic.

An ordinary photograph of Atatürk does not inherently express hatred against Armenians, advocate violence, glorify atrocities or attack another nationality.

If a moderator wants to turn “Turkish player with an Atatürk avatar” into grounds for exclusion, the burden should be on that moderator to explain exactly what neutral rule was violated.

2/ The historical accusation being made against Atatürk is especially serious because the basic chronology does not support portraying him as the political authority directing Ottoman Armenian policy in 1915.

In 1915 Mustafa Kemal was not the Ottoman head of government, Interior Minister or the political leader controlling the central government.

He was an Ottoman military officer and commanded the 19th Division during the Gallipoli campaign. He became President of the Turkish Republic only in 1923.

Whatever position someone takes on the Armenian events, simply transferring responsibility from the Ottoman political leadership of 1915 onto Mustafa Kemal requires evidence.

3/ That distinction should not be controversial.

If @chakerathe or another moderator specifically claims that Atatürk personally organized or directed the Armenian events, then provide evidence concerning Atatürk himself.

Do not substitute:

“he was Turkish”
or
“he later became the leader of Turkey”
for evidence of responsibility for decisions made by a different political leadership in 1915.
Otherwise, Turkish users are effectively being told that their republic's founder carries collective guilt simply because he was an Ottoman officer and later became Turkey's leader.

That is precisely why this begins to look like nationality-based prejudice rather than neutral historical moderation.

4/ It is equally misleading to casually group Atatürk together with the belligerent dictators of World War II.

He was President when Hearts of Iron IV begins in 1936, but he died on 10 November 1938, before World War II began in September 1939.

He did not lead Turkey during World War II.

So treating Atatürk as though he were simply another WWII dictator requiring the same symbolic restrictions badly distorts the actual historical context.

5/ And this is a Hearts of Iron IV community.

National leaders, political ideologies and twentieth-century history are literally the subject matter of the game.

Atatürk is not some unrelated extremist symbol that Turkish users imported into a completely apolitical community.

He is one of the most important historical figures connected to the Turkey represented in the game.

That makes the decision to single out his ordinary portrait even more difficult to justify.

6/ The Armenian-events argument does not solve this problem.

I do not accept the legal characterization of the 1915 events that these moderators are attempting to impose as beyond legitimate disagreement.

Others are free to disagree with me.

But disagreement over historical or legal characterization does not establish that an Atatürk portrait is hateful imagery, nor does it establish that a Turkish user displaying Atatürk hates Armenians.

Those are separate propositions.

7/ More importantly, political recognition by governments or parliaments is not identical to a universally binding international judicial determination settling every aspect of a historical controversy for every person in every country.

The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide through both prohibited acts and the required intent to destroy a protected group in whole or in part. It does not itself constitute a judicial judgment on the events of 1915.

And the European Court of Human Rights in Perinçek v. Switzerland expressly did not decide the historical/legal classification of the 1915 events when deciding the Article 10 case.

So moderators cannot simply say “the legal question has universally been settled; therefore disagreement equals hate speech.”

8/ None of that means Discord has to host every opinion.

Discord's current rules prohibit denial of historical mass atrocities. That is Discord's private platform policy.

But Discord's same hateful-conduct policy also protects people against hatred and discrimination based on national origin, and its definition of hate imagery focuses on symbols used to promote hatred, threats, discrimination or violence.

That distinction matters enormously here.

An ordinary Atatürk portrait is not automatically transformed into hateful imagery simply because a moderator strongly disagrees with a Turkish user's interpretation of history.

9/ And this is where the anti-Turkish discrimination concern becomes impossible to ignore.

If historical figures and national symbols associated with other countries are tolerated, yet the founder of the Turkish Republic is uniquely treated as inherently offensive, then Turkish players are plainly entitled to ask:

Why are Turkish historical symbols being held to a different standard?

If Turkish users are punished for displaying a mainstream Turkish national figure while equivalent expressions of other national identities are tolerated, that is the textbook appearance of selective treatment based on nationality.

10/ Discord itself defines national origin as a protected characteristic and prohibits discrimination and prejudice based on protected characteristics.

Paradox's own published forum rules likewise prohibit expressions that are racially offensive or “in any way discriminatory,” including ethnic slurs and hate speech.

So this cannot be dismissed with:

“Turks are offended, who cares?”

If Turkish nationality is being singled out for worse treatment, that is exactly the sort of discrimination these rules claim to oppose.

11/ The moderation process afterwards makes the situation even more concerning.

We challenged the accusations.

We attempted to provide historical and legal counterarguments.

Instead of those arguments simply being answered, users involved in the objection were banned and messages were removed or hidden.

Then access to the Discord was closed to new joins, meaning those already excluded could not simply return and defend themselves against what was being said about them.

If that closure was genuinely an unrelated anti-raid or security measure, say so and provide the timeline.

Otherwise, the sequence creates the very strong appearance of moderators controlling who was allowed to participate in the argument after banning the side challenging them.

12/ Then we moved the issue to Steam.

Why?

Because if moderators are confident that their decision was fair, they should have no problem with their reasoning being publicly examined.

Yet the complaint continued: messages challenging the moderation and defending the Turkish position were removed, restricted or suppressed instead of substantively answered.

If our argument is wrong, refute it.

Deleting an argument is not a refutation.

Banning the person asking the question is not evidence.

Closing the room after removing one side does not make the remaining side correct.

13/ And no, “this is a private server; we can ban whoever we want” does not answer the accusation of discriminatory moderation.

Yes, private communities have moderation powers.

Paradox's own rules reserve broad authority to delete posts and punish users.

But the existence of that power does not establish that every use of it is fair.

A moderator can possess the power to ban someone while still applying a rule selectively or discriminatorily.

Those are completely different questions.

14/ The issue therefore is not:

“Do moderators have a ban button?”

Of course they do.

The issue is:

Was a Turkish user banned under a standard that would have been applied in the same way to a comparable user from another nationality?

Was Atatürk targeted because of an objective, consistently applied rule?

Or was a central Turkish national figure treated as inherently illegitimate in a way equivalent foreign national figures are not?

That is the question Paradox needs to answer.

15/ Calling this concern “racism” or “anti-Turkish discrimination” is not about claiming that Turkish people constitute a biological race.

The relevant issue is discrimination and hostility based on national origin and ethnic/national identity — categories explicitly recognized in Discord's own hateful-conduct framework.

When Turkish identity, Turkish historical figures or Turkish users are singled out for adverse treatment because they are Turkish, that is a nationality-based discrimination concern regardless of the semantic label someone prefers.

16/ A Turkish person using Atatürk as an avatar does not imply hostility toward Armenians.

It does not imply support for atrocities.

It does not imply racial or ethnic supremacy.

For millions of Turkish citizens, Atatürk represents the creation of their modern republic.

Automatically interpreting that symbol through the most hostile possible lens while refusing equivalent respect to Turkish historical identity is precisely the kind of treatment that makes Turkish players feel unwelcome in an allegedly international community.

17/ Nor should Turkish users be required to renounce their own interpretation of a historical controversy simply to prove that they are worthy of participating in a gaming community.

There is an enormous difference between attacking Armenian people and disagreeing over legal or historical interpretation.

A fair moderation system should be capable of distinguishing:

a historical argument
from
hatred toward an ethnic group.

If it cannot, then Turkish users are being subjected to an ideological loyalty test rather than a neutral anti-hate policy.

18/ We therefore ask @HOI_Game @PdxInteractive @PDX_Dev_Studio and @chakerathe to answer directly:
What exact written rule made an ordinary Atatürk avatar bannable?
Was the user banned specifically because the picture was Atatürk?

What evidence supports the allegation personally connecting Atatürk to the crimes moderators attributed to him?

Are equivalent historical figures from other national communities subjected to the same standard?

Why were rebuttals removed or hidden?

Why were users challenging the decision banned?

Why was the Discord subsequently closed to new joins?

And who reviews a moderator accused of applying rules discriminatorily?

19/ This is especially important for a company running an international historical game.

Turkish players are not second-class members of the HOI4 community.

We are not guests who must hide the founder of our own republic while other players freely display their national history.

We buy the game.

We support the game.

We participate in the same communities.

We deserve exactly the same treatment as everyone else.

20/ @HOI_Game @PdxInteractive @PDX_Dev_Studio @chakerathe

This is why we are publicly raising the issue.

If the Atatürk ban was justified, show the rule and show the evidence.

If Atatürk was accused of personal responsibility for the Armenian events, substantiate that accusation.

If posts were removed for legitimate moderation reasons, explain which rules they violated.

If the Discord was closed for unrelated security reasons, document that.

But do not subject Turkish players to a different standard, remove their ability to respond, and then dismiss their complaint.

No anti-Turkish double standards.
No nationality-based discrimination.
No collective guilt.
Same rules. Same evidence. Same standards. Same respect

[uqi @havadaucanates]

@onedio #racistparadox

[uqi @havadaucanates]

@lagrimacanta millete soru sormuşsun, millet de cevabını vermiş biiznillah.

[uqi @havadaucanates]

yarın bi gün benim pp'dekinin ölüm haberini alırız

[uqi @havadaucanates]

@habereditoru düdük, denetimsizlik ile ilgili tek tivit atmadın, saçma tivitlere mi şeyin kalkıyor?

[uqi @havadaucanates]

@meyusufdemirci peki ai'ı yönlendirince yönlendirmene göre cevap verdiğini düşünüyorsan, yönlendirmediğinde objektif cevap vereceğini nasıl düşünüyorsun, kanıtımız ne?

[PariltiFerahi @PariltiFerahi]

@cevad_ulunay Olayla ilgisi yoksa yakında tutuklanır.

[CEM DURSUN @Cemmdursunn]

Cem Bey iyi niyetinizi anlıyorum ancak bir hukukçu olarak bu vahim yanılgıyı düzeltmek zorundayım:

"İzahnameye yazdık, hak iddia edemezsiniz" anlayışı Türk Hukuku'nda HÜKÜMSÜZDÜR!

1️⃣ Ağır Kusur ve Hileden Sorumsuzluk Olmaz (TBK Md. 115): Türk Borçlar Kanunu Md. 115 emreder: Kast veya ağır kusurdan dolayı sorumsuzluk kaydı KESİNLİKLE GEÇERSİZDİR. Fon kaynaklarını mevzuata aykırı ilişkili şirketlere aktarıp temerrüde düşen hiçbir yönetici "izahnamede yazıyordu" zırhının arkasına saklanamaz!

2️⃣ Genel İşlem Koşulu (TBK Md. 20-25): Yatırımcıya matbu olarak dayatılan, dürüstlük kuralına aykırı tek taraflı sorumsuzluk şartları mahkemelerce "Yazılmamış Sayılır."

3️⃣ SPK Kanunu Md. 55/3 Kamu Düzenidir: Kanunun açıkça getirdiği "Kurucu ve yöneticilerin müteselsil şahsi sorumluluğu", matbu bir fon izahnamesi cümlesiyle ortadan kaldırılamaz.

Kimse 511 bin yatırımcıya "hakkınızı arayamazsınız, boş senet imzaladınız" diyemez. İzahnameler kasti manipülasyon ve örtülü kazanç aktarımının aklama belgesi değildir!

#Bist #TeraPortföy #TP2 #SPK #Fonzedeler

[AYK @Jimmy_Jazz_]

@boraerdin Burada önemi konu özellikle Tera'nin TLY fonunda devletin kardan aldigi %17.5 lik vergi.Bu paranin maliye tarafinda Fon alacaklilarina geri odenmesi gerekiyor.Devlet alenen Ponzi oyunundan vergi almiş oluyor.Bu para helal bir para değil.Bu konuyu her yerde duyuralim lutfen.

[Mantık Adamı (Opsiyonel) @FirstLogicLover]

@keremiko1 7/7'yi dolandırılma riski sanan bir topluluk var, aklın gider.

[uqi @havadaucanates]

@Egeizmir @geceleriesen cevap yok

[uqi @havadaucanates]

@geceleriesen işkembe

[KerOz @keremiko1]

Aklin yolu bir. Volatilite riskini satin aliyorum ben 7/7 ile. Kontrol mekanizmasinin denetlenmeme riskini degil

[uqi @havadaucanates]

@lagrimacanta dövletimiz kkm denen illeti de üzerinden attı biiznillah 🤞🏼🤞🏼

[BankOfTurkey @BankOfMec]

@besyatirim101 @SaryayMakineYay Bence yatırımcı son olaydan sonra haklı. “ters repo, teminat durumunu bilmek takip etmek zorunda değilim, demek ki para piyasası fonu riskliymiş,milletin ev-araba parası gitmiş” diyor. Sadece teminat yeterliliği için doğru kriterler koysan ve ilişkili grup olmaz desen yaşanmazdı.

[uqi @havadaucanates]

@sait_yazici @besyatirim101 akıl akıldan üstündür

[BankOfTurkey @BankOfMec]

@besyatirim101 @SaryayMakineYay Bence yatırımcı son olaydan sonra haklı. “ters repo, teminat durumunu bilmek takip etmek zorunda değilim, demek ki para piyasası fonu riskliymiş,milletin ev-araba parası gitmiş” diyor. Sadece teminat yeterliliği için doğru kriterler koysan ve ilişkili grup olmaz desen yaşanmazdı.

[uqi @havadaucanates]

@sait_yazici @besyatirim101 yarın kendilerinden habersiz şekilde ters repo ağırlığını teraya benzetmeyeceklerinin garantisini ben yatırımcı olarak göremiyorum. o yüzden çıkanları da gayet anlıyorum. denetimsizliğin manzarası karşımızdayken.

[𝔽𝕦𝕔𝕜𝕋𝕙𝕚𝕤𝕊𝕙𝕚𝕥🇪🇦 @kliseseverim]

Beş yılda Yüzde BİR MİLYON GETİRİ NEDİR YA BU NEDİR AQ

[Zeynep Candan Aktaş @zeycandak]

Empati kurmak ile piyasa gerçekleri başka. Ben insanların paralarının içerde kalmasına çok üzüldüm, elimden geldiğince de anlattım. Onlar için bu birikimlerin ne kadar önemli olduğunun bilincindeyim.
Sistemin düzenleyici ve denetleyici kurumları özellikle son bir yıl piyasa profesyonellerinin yoğunlaşan uyarılarını görmezden geldi. Bizzat Hazine ve Maliye Bakanı Mehmet Şimşek 'fonlardaki manipülasyonun farkındayız, önlem alacağız' dedi. Ama kamu üzerine düşeni yapmakta gecikti. Bu manipülasyonları portföy yönetmek zanneden yatırımcılar da 'bu fonlar riskli' diyen uzmanlara hakaret etme cesareti buldu. Portföy yöneticilerine 'fon yönetimi böyle yapılır' diye ders vermeler; hesap sormalar; gerçekleri görmek istemeyiş, bunu nereye koyacağız.

[Cagri @MekaninxSahibi]

Şu güvensiz ortamda isterlerse BES i de kafalarına göre değiştirebilirler, katkı paylarını hatta devlet katkısını ve fon kazanımlarını isterlerse bloke edebilirler. Ben 2026 Fon krizinden bunu anlıyorum.
SPK yatırımcıyı eksik bilgilendiriyor. Risk faktörünün fonun değer kaybetmesi olarak biliyorduk meğer 1/7 risk seviyeli mevduat eşleğenli fon bile sizi içeri hapsedebiliyormuş.

[uqi @havadaucanates]

@madmax054086467 @Ferhat17138353 @besyatirim101 https://t.co/dtPgwjl9iO

bu tivitin altındakilerle ortak düşünüyorum yani

[Como Lokko @Ekotravolta]

@besyatirim101 Hayır diğerlerinde de aynısını olacağını zannediyor ama bankaların PPF si güvenli

[uqi @havadaucanates]

@madmax054086467 @Ferhat17138353 @besyatirim101 hocam varsayalım izahname açıkça kuralına uygun şekilde yazıldı, ama buna rağmen kurala uyulmadı. yine de denetleyen olacak mıydı? bu da sizin söyleminizi boşa çıkarmıyor mu? denetleyenin olmadığını kabul ediyorsak, ppflere güvenmemek de gayet tutarlı bir davranış.