Product key for nfs most wanted full

This is the second writeup I’ve completed looking at classic games, this time focusing on Manchester United vs Bayern Munich at the Camp Nou in 1999. This was a difficult match to analyse but there were trends in the game which explain how the match unfolded the way it did. The first write up can be found here.
Onto the game, Man United had lost Keane (the captain) and Scholes to suspension and even their centre back, Berg. Losing three first team players will damage any team, but their two main centre midfielders is going to really hurt the team’s structure. Bayern do have a similar issue with injuries, losing their striker (Elber) and left back (Lizarazu). Elber was a big lost as he was Bayern’s joint top scorer that year with 13 goals.
Ferguson had just won the Premier League for the fifth time and his fourth FA cup, both were close affairs and pushed the United squad till the end of season. Hitzfield on the other hand had an easier end of season, finishing well ahead of second place. Bayern did lose the DFB Pokal to Bremen but this left his team time to prepare for Hitzfield’s second champions league title (first winning with Dortmund two year before).
Highlights 1st Half 2nd Half
Bayern’s unique playstyle
- line-up
As can be seen in the line-up, Matthaus was playing in the sweeper position. This was due to Bayern Munich’s man marking system which has a straight back four follow Man United’s corresponding attacking players. Matthaus was then an extra man in defence who would cover any additional runners and prevent overloads. It took advantage of the plain 442 which Ferguson preferred as it had a predictable attacking movement (from the two strikers and wingers).
In attack, Bayern Munich were playing with three strikers but with differing roles. Jancker was a traditional target man while Basler and Zickler would have a deeper position between the defence and midfield. This created multiple targets for Munich’s transition players to target with their long balls. Especially since Zickler and Basler could take advantage of the lack of aerial ability in the midfield positions. This was successful in transitioning the team as it took advantage of any space left between United’s two banks of four. It also put Irwin and Neville in compromising positions, unsure of whether to get keep their shape or get involved.
Bayern’s long balls were accurate and dangerous as they had quality delivery from Matthaus, Kahn and the full backs. In an ideal scenario, Jancker takes it on the chest and passes to Effenberg who then can find the right pass to open up the Man U defence as the wide forwards simultaneously make penetrating runs. United attempted to counter Bayern’s forward line by allowing Stam to aggressively push when Bayern forwards wandered but this was risky and contributed to conceding the free kick which was scored.
A detail about the freekick is the man in the wall blocking both United defenders but also Schmeichel’s view of the unorthodox freekick. I’m not sure when this was popularised but the United team seemed caught out by it.
United’s Frustration
- lineup
It took Bayern Munich 5 minutes to score the freekick, this gave Ferguson and United very little time to adapt to the issues posed in the opening plays. While many sides would take this hard, a feature of United sides when pegged back is they would pressure the opposition intensely and try to benefit from any complacency in the opposition. Bayern just counter this with pressure of their own, showing mental strength but also keeping the game on high intensity.
Manchester’s defence and midfield’s job when in possession was to get the ball to Yorke and Cole as quickly as possible. After this the United attackers (including Blomqvist and Giggs) were given a fair amount of attacking freedom due to the talent they possessed. Munich’s centre backs aggressively followed Yorke and Cole removing any chance that Yorke or Cole would have enough space to counter properly.
Manchester played a simple 442 which fluctuated with the attacking freedom some of the players were given and the pressure that United tried to apply. United also had a plan to consistently keep the pitch wide during the game, this would pull Munich’s defence out position creating gaps between defenders for Yorke and Cole to follow. This displays the big weakness that man marking has, as it gives your opponent the opportunity to decide your team’s movement. Even though the space was created, it could not be taken advantage of as the man marking system was played well enough to follow any attacking threats United possessed. This could have been countered if Beckham, Giggs or Bloomqvist could have more consistently provided support in the attack as Bayern wanted to retain some familiar shape in defence.
As the match progressed, United’s wingers were pushing up the pitch during any break. Irwin and Neville would support the move to an extend but were wary of the counter that Bayern threatened.
Due the pressure each team applied and focus on long balls, the game had a very quick and end-to-end nature to it. Beckham and Butt needed to play with restraint for much of the game to prevent free space and limit the effectiveness of the long balls Bayern utilised. Additionally, more space can be found in the centre of the pitch during this game. Central midfield often contained only four players in the game from both teams (Butt + Beckham and Effenburg + Jeremies) with Matthaus sometimes entering the fray. Today, the centre is very compacted with players trying to influence possession. This game is more based on direct plays, creating a back and forth between the teams.
How the tide changed
The game had gained a rhythm in the first half, United would attack quickly but not dangerously while Bayern would pump balls forward with varying success. Ferguson was not one for tinkering but he clearly was able to keep his players motivated as they continued attacking quickly.
As said before, United attempted to quickly move forward when regaining possession but Bayern’s system was extremely tactically safe when in attack. Bayern’s players would remain near markers when attacking, so counters would not be effective. (This is kind of similar to Real Madrid under Zidane but he plays with a far superior team). For example, Munich counter but are stopped and United attempt to create their own counter but run into an established Bayern defence.
United began to work their way into some kinds of dominance as they would find more success when taking slightly more time when moving up the pitch. It allowed Giggs and Beckham to become more influential, often drawing in two or more defenders out of position. As the two defenders were pulled towards Giggs, space would be created for Beckham or the United strikers. Clearly it was a situation Bayern were not prepared for.
After the 30th minute, Giggs’ presence was really becoming more influential. His ability to draw defenders in was upsetting Munich’s man marking and gave space to Beckham. Beckham, at times, would move onto the right flank if Giggs had pushed centrally, he would then have more room to create. Hitzfield notices this and started playing Zickler deeper and wider on the left wing to prevent the overload.
Matthaus started moving more into midfield as was natural for the libero (the first paragraph of this article explains the position simply). Both these decisions allowed United to become more confident as they attacked.
Now United were given the mental edge as they could build up momentum going forward, it no longer felt like chasing a game and felt more like dominance (something which they were used to). This would have been sustained if it were not for the United defence continually giving the ball to Zickler and Basler, allowing Bayern to release pressure and reset the momentum. This was a by-product of the premier league at the time, as the defence and goalkeeper were not expected to distribute the ball well. You could see the United defence often became overwhelmed by a German high press.
Half Time
-Man United might be one down but the confidence in the side has grown as they find their place in the game. Yorke and Cole are still marked out but don’t have to worry as much about Matthaus (but he does remain a competent part of defence). The United centre backs don’t feel underwhelmed and the Giggs+Beckham combo seems to be functioning better. Ferguson can put down the hairdryer. Hitzfield will be stuck between remaining with a system that has seen Munich make it to half time with a lead or tweak, hoping not to create further chaos. You can tell Munich have lost their joint top scorer, they just look slightly blunted, needing penetrative runs not offered by the target man and other forwards.
A battle for supremacy
The match continued in an end to end flow with the ball often ending up in the air due to the long balls each team attempted.
Jancker creates an early chance, showing how easily United’s midfield could be surpassed in the process as Effenberg would be able to out muscle either Beckham or Butt, especially when supported by Matthaus. A Keane/Effenberg battle would have been a better contest.
Man United were taking more time in their build-up but were still playing single direct balls to Cole or Yorke. United remained deceptively ineffective on the counter as they looked dangerous but Bayern could cope with it. Bayern were forced to bring the full backs into play more now, trying to find new ways of reaching Jancker, who was isolated.
The only time United found a better chance was when Matthaus was caught in the midfield with Giggs being given the room to cross. On the other hand, Bayern’s crosses were not finding Jancker while Basler and Zickler were unable to impact the game in the wider position. Man United were comfortable with this as Munich’s attack no longer created overloads, as the wide forwards were marked by the full backs naturally. Neville and Irwin were not as restricted due to this.
Hitzfield may have seen this as a non-issue as long as the defence functioned, Munich were still neutralising all United counters and were still limiting their chances when Giggs was on the ball. Despite this, some of the Munich team were looking frustrated, especially Basler who attempted to chip Schmeichel on two different occasions from 40 yards out. Jancker also looked irritated as Stam and Johnsen were marking him out of the game. This kind of frustration can spread throughout a team.
In the latter periods of the game, Yorke is forced to drop deeper looking for some space but his man marker remains tight.
The first change of the game is Blomqvist for Sheringham. Sheringham is there to add additional attacking pressure, moving centrally and creating another option for Giggs and Beckham. Yorke and Cole were not winning enough aerial battles but Sheringham was taller than most of the Bayern defence. Doing this did remove some width so Munich could play more compact in the middle. Today, this would be solved with an attacking fullback but Irwin was in no way providing this.
Munich’s first change came in the 71st minute as Scholl came on for Zickler, bringing a fresh face but also a composed vision to the attack. This was a smart move as Scholl was playing a more direct style which actually challenged the united defence. Not to long after the change, Scholl hits the post from another lob attempt (this time from just outside the box) as Schmeichel pressures. It’s a moment of luck but one which can push United on and resign Munich to thinking it’s not their night, all due to a shot being an inch off.
Matthaus comes off for Fink, a like for like replacement. Matthaus has put in a good performance but Fink must focus on supporting the defence and not be coaxed out into the midfield, disrupting the defensive organisation. United make their second change as Cole makes way for Solskjaer. Both United substitutes are thrown forward. Giggs and Beckham take up floating positions in the midfield which challenged Munich’s man marking. The subs Ferguson made were not tactical but simple messages: attack, attack, attack. Even if they concede, they lose with some pride.
United begin to build pressure through their chances. While they leave space open at the back they make sure make sure that control of the game is United’s, putting definite pressure on Bayern. Scholl takes advantage of the space, as he continues to push United back with his direct runs ahead. Giving Bayern the time they desperately needed.
Fergie time
It is now into the period that Ferguson is famous for. United find a clear-cut chance nearing the 90th minute. Sheringham can hold up a defender while the long ball reaches Yorke. Giggs occupies the right back with a run while Fink is in midfield when Matthaus would at least be tracking back. The flick from Yorke then gives Sheringham the chance. While it goes wide, United build the pressure even more.
Bayern must be worrying as they just try to get the ball out. Man United just keep on relentlessly coming back, Beckham intelligently sits back to provide the passes and support where needed. Bayern make their final change, as Basler swaps with Salihamidzic, someone who can put additional pressure on Giggs while still posing an attacking threat.
United pressure Bayern’s backline the same way the German’s did earlier in the game, the defenders are forced to clear the ball out of play. They win a corner and the Munich defenders appear burdened at the late stage of the game which, leads to the first goal in the 90th minute. A shot is hit back in by Giggs from a deflection and Sheringham takes up his natural poacher position to divert the shot into the net. Sheringham finds the room due to Munich’s rush to move out of the box, leaving Sheringham almost forgotten about.
United had 12 corners during the game, nearly twice as many as Bayern (7). The fact it worked at some point is unsurprising, especially when United had two fresh attackers challenging the box and an additional man (Schmeichel). An argument can also be made that Schmeichel’s presence in the box draws another defender into mark him, leaving space for Giggs to hit the ball on the outside of the area. Bayern now must be on all out defence as they don’t want to see it all lost in a matter of minutes but the United players are invigorated and now what can be done.
Bayern actually push United from kick off.
United allow the Bayern push and collect the ball, then Solskjaer drags the isolated and tired Kouffare out to the left side of the pitch by following a good long ball. This eventually draws another corner. Sheringham pulls off a brilliant front post run by curling his run from the centre of the box, losing his marker and surprising the front post men. He tips it towards an alert and fresh Solskjaer.
One more kick and the game is over.
Conclusion
Frustration was a key component of the game. Neither side grabbed the matched for long periods or could assert consistent dominance over the other team. Bayern particularly became more frustrated as they found so much resistance in attack, with many unproductive attacks. United seemed somewhat composed while Bayern’s frustrations grew, United soldiered on and took advantage late on.
This really displayed the strength that Ferguson had, as it was not necessarily about the on-pitch changes that made the difference. It was the attitude instilled in the players by Ferguson, no United game from the start of his tenure to the end was over until the whistle was blown. If the game was not over then the team would not stop working and this is a perfect example of the attitude out doing the opponent.
Additional note
-There is an 8 part podcast out called The Mixer which focuses on Premier league tactical development. It may give a good understanding of how influential the United side was and the importance of some of the players.

Hello /anarchism user.
I am a concerned outsider to /anarchism, who has decided to document the rampant moderator abuse I have witnessed on /@ and /metanarchism (since I was first made aware of it). Your subreddit has been taken over by incompetent mods who are slowly ruining it. In this post I will present my evidence, and educated possible solutions that you may want to consider. You'll notice my account isn't very old-- almost all of the evidence I have gathered is from the last two weeks, although the issues apparently go back much further than that.
The main issues that I have seen in this sub are:
Mods delete reasonable and polite comments if those comments challenge their values, values which are not the subreddit's rules. Sometimes this seems to be over-reaction or sloppy moderating. Sometimes it seems to be personal vendetta instead.
Mods ban reasonable and polite users when they suspect that they may disagree with that mod's values, values which are not in the subreddit's rules, based on the user's post history in other subreddits. Contributing to this is the Anti-Oppression Policy (this will be called the AOP), which is frought with poor definitions and inconsistencies that lend to some mods carrying out far too many poor judgement calls. This is creating an echo chamber and banning members who could be great participants and drivers of unique/fruitful conversations.
Specific mods remove criticism of their own, individual, moderator habits (I think there is likely wide-spread agreement that a mod should not remove criticism of themselves, but instead bring said criticism to the attention of other mods, who may then remove it pending discussion? Seems more ethical to me).
Mods fail to remove certain user's threats of violence, and then delete the comments of users who question these actions.
Mods fail to follow the guidelines of their own rules in their own subreddit.
All of this creates dramatic infighting on /metanarchism-- making it a subreddit that most reasonable users will not participate in, destroying the supposed function of that subreddit. See former user Vindalfr's general comment here: general sub assessment
In the remainder of this post I will: A. discuss the actions of public enemy #1, Prince_Kropotkin (the drama surround him is key to outlining many of these problems; he will hereafter be called PrinceK, who wants to spell that horrid name?); B. discuss eeplox, who seems to be an example of a user protected from having to follow the rules by certain moderators C. demonstrate each specific mod's actions, the actions I could gather in the last few days anyway D. discuss why the AOP is a poor standard E. present the most examples of unreasonable banning, only from the last four days or so (that's all it took) F. present a conclusion with suggestions for actions that could heal the subreddit, including alternatives to the AOP that have been proven to work in successful subreddits. G: I'm leaving a space at the end to defend my character, which I'm sure is about to be called into question
A: The Actions of Prince_Kroptikon Widely considered a jerk (at least) there have been multiple threads on /meta requesting a ban of this user. No post that I could find has ever passed though, but threads continue to be made that target him or his behaviour specifically. Users argue that PrinceK has threatened violence, but he argues otherwise; users say his submissions to /drama causes drama, but submitting to /drama has yet to be made against the rules (although there is now a thread discussing this). PrinceK was threatened violence by user Squee, but the comment outlining this violence and how it wasn't dealt with properly was removed (by mod Radq-a-v) A1
Another user agrees that this is an issue but mod ProlierThanThou deletes their complaints: A2 A3 A4
Users who present polite reasoning as to why they do not want PrinceK banned have their comments deleted: A5 Although some remain up: A6
To be fair, some of the threads against PK have been taken down, but only when they have reasonable titles?: A7
Because the post below that has been repeated verbatim in multiple threads from an obvious sock called banprince, with the express purpose of pressuring the community to just give in and ban him already hasn't been taken down in it's most recent version: A8
Additionally, in the above screenshot user Anarcho-ThrowawayXYZ implies that the failure to ban PrinceK is all head mod sync0pate's doing, when it demonstrably isn't. The community hasn't voted him out.
Moreover, the people are /drama are getting some kicks out of the constant violent threats being thrown up at PrinceK :A9
What does all of this mean? It means that Prince K is lucky-- that because he was an established participant in /anarchism before anyone tried to ban him the mods cannot just willy nilly remove him like they do for brand new posters on a daily basis. He's committed to being allowed to participate, and is willing to withstand abuse to be able to do so. New users who were banned after a single comment would simply give up, sometimes they message mod mail or make posts but ultimately that does them no good. The rules are stacked against any new user if the mod doesn't like their opinion, or their phrasing of their opinion, and that is contributing to loss for the subreddit. Is it a circle jerk, a hug box? I think it will be if things don't change, on certain issues at least.
B. The odd special status of user eeplox This user has quit /a and family subs before, this most recent time may be permanent. It's not that I don't sympathize with some of the comments this user has received, this one for example: B1
There is clearly some abuse being fired their way, unfairly so. But mods have taken to trying to defend this user from criticism. For example: when they didn't leave directly after their latest rage-quit post, and who chose to politely and reasonably call out what may have been hypocrisy on eeplox's part, or what may be simple disagreement. B2 B3 B4 B5
I especially wonder why this sane recommendation was deleted: B6
It seems they also prevented further discussion of eeplox's departure: B7
For some reason they also didn't allow eeplox's proposal to ban the word 'stupid' from criticism. God please let me exist in a world where we can still call ideas stupid: B8 B9
Just fyi, someone who doesn't think MRA's should be banned just for being MRAs is concern trolling? I don't know-- that's ridiculous, and a demonstration of how the AOP applies to user's post history of disagreement and not their actions in /a, or possibly even any abusive actions: B10
What does this mean? Sometimes this mod bias works against users, and sometimes it supports the self-destructive choices of users who agree with the mod bias. This silences both constructive help that could have healed the sub (in the case of the sane comment) and silences excellent intellectual discussion as surrounding why calling an idea stupid isn't ableist.
I'm going to just quote ravencrowed here, in a response they once wrote to eeplox:
“your goal is your goal, some of us want /anarchism to be an educative and supportive resource for people, rather than a clubhouse where we can feel superior cause we are “purer than thou'. I have no problem with you banning people who come to troll, but having a self declared authoritarian mod ban people for expressing an opinion on something is not what the goals of this sub are”
Proof of and context of quote: B11
I think these are words to remember as we move into the next section.
C: Specific Mod Breakdown
I have more mods to add here, at this point I am itching to release this post, and I want to ensure I have some good evidence for some others, which may take some time.
limitexperience
This mod deleted PrinceK's comment explaining, angrily but non-violently, that he never threatened violence, but that multiple other users do regularly. LE
Clearly this mod has it out for PrinceK, although other users openly discuss why that is ridiculous: LE 2
This mod has demonstrated some over-reactions for removing comments with 'suggested violence': LE 3
On the other hand they seem not to care that one user has made death threats, and opposes a ban on a different user who encouraged suicide . Painful hypocrisy. LE 4 LE 5
This mod has also banned dissent over general modding practices of the sub. LE 6
You'll see a great deal of this mod in later discussion of head mod sync0pate, and their actions are dishonest and confusing.
SpaceHeeder -- This mod only does /debateanarchism and not /anarchism. I can't believe I didn't realize this at the time. I am unfamiliar with the rules of /debateanarchism and so I am removing my comment on their moderating policy. My apologies.
This bit is still useful: On the other hand, Spaceheeder has pointed out why there is controversy over the custom of pre-emptive banning: SH 5
Prolierthanthou
It's clear that this mod is unwilling or unable to give actual justification for the moderation policies, and resorts to calling disagreements over it “reactionary” Prolierthanthou1
This mod says that they are considering breaking the rules of their own subreddit and banning PrinceK without community consent because they don't like that Prince K has posted to drama subs, or that other posters in said drama sub have swastika flairs (for the drama of it which is obvious to most but entirely missed by this mod) Prolierthanthou 2
This mod has a history of actively working against the rules of the subreddit—in particular by re-instating a disgraced mod without any consent of the head mod or the community Prolierthanthou3
When confronted with the unfair banning procedures of the subreddit Prolierthanthou has a non-reponse and laugh over the issue (in another subreddit, not a or meta) Prolierthanthou on a different subreddit 4
Rad_q_a-v_
This mod first spoke to me to tell me to get “the fuck” off /Meta@ when I was politely asking why user JohnCanuck was banned. Full disclosure: JohnCanuck is my partner. Note that I had never participated in /a, but because I had posted in /tumblirinaction I was not welcome to question why I wasn't welcome in /a, despite the fact that /meta is considered the appropriate place to have those discussions RA 1
This mod deleted this comment complaining about a user's exit after PrinceK was not banned RA 2
This mod deleted a thread that requested to unban min_thamee. If the point on the /meta sub is to give a platform to unban users or discuss their ban, then why was this thread deleted? RA 3
I would probably remove this low-effort comment as well, but I think also should have served as a wake-up call to this mod that their banning tactics are becoming very unpopular: RA 4
sync0pate
I feel for this mod, it's clear that they are often reasonable, but come under fire even from otheformer mods for their decisions: SY 1 SY 2
Wherein limitexperience can't even be honest enough to link to their example of hate speech SY 3
Where links are provided and none of them are actually from anarchism, and non of them contain sync0pate, so it couldn't possibly be his fault... right? SY 4 here is the linked material SY 5 1 http://imgur.com/SUz1uJP http://imgur.com/1jq4O9g
sync0pate then gets rightfully mad that they were linked to hate in other subreddits, another false link is provided, sync0pate is calmer and still rightfully denying the accusation. I think it's important to note that this mod doesn't have to stoop to simply deleting the comments that criticize them. They usually, but not always, respond. Here are some examples where they don't and, honestly, these criticisms don't seem reasonable to me, and are sometimes pitched from obvious sock puppets like fucksync0pate2 below: SY 6 SY 7
The criticism of sync0pate seems to have been drummed up by various users and fellow mods who disagree with sync0pate's modding policy, generally believing that he tolerates harassment, is too lenient in his definition on harassment, etc. Enkara does this here: SY 8 Lilit_ and fuck_syncopate do so here: SY 9
I can't understand for the life of me why it is so easy for other mods to prey on sync0pate when they clearly were a very a respected member of the community previous to a year or so ago. Maybe they still are outside of meta?
Voltairede
This person is no longer a mod, but I didn't realize that when I began this post, so here is what I collected anyway. They do, afterall, mod several other subreddits and they quit of their own volition, not over the multiple threads that suggested they were abusing their power.
This mod has deleted many comments that called out their own censorship and 'false' cries of oppression. Yes this user is angry. But they are not violent, they source their claim. VO 1
These users are polite. VO 2
XYEaQMJvs
I'm not sure what qualifies this post for removal, it's low-effort but calls out hypocrisy: XY 1
Removed criticism of fellow mod Voltairene, which while angry wasn't violent and , arguably, isn't misplaced: XY 2 They then refused to take a thread about Voltairene's abuse seriously: X3 They also agree that participation in certain subreddits is grounds for banning: X4
This impulse, to ban on the grounds of participation in a certain subreddit, is revealed for what it is in the following comment thread. This mod talks to a user who wants to calmly discuss their bigot friend's thoughts and change their mind. This mod would rather censor ideas they don't agree with than have honest discussions, even when these discussions are over issues that are clearly win-able. The redpill is pretty toxic, it wouldn't be hard to inform their more honest members. X7
If violent threats are unacceptable on the subreddit this mod seems not to care: X1 X6
punkswithcleankitchens
This mod has an over-active ban hammer, the proof for which is in the banning section below, to prevent repetition. They were clear about one aspect of their stance on banning, though, in that participating on a subreddit they don't like-- regardless of even the content of that participation— is grounds for a banning in their eyes. punkswithcleankitchens1 Here user PrinceK describes this kind of justification as post-hoc punkswithcleankitchens2
This kind of constant banning is actually frowned upon in the AOP creativity
Which leads us nicely into our next section:
D: The Muddled Rules of the AOP:
First the AOP says that it is abusive to stalk a user's overview AOP 1 For many of the users who were banned, and there is documentation for this below, their first post wasn't offensive. There is no first or “second offence” that the AOP references. Couldn't have stricter hive mind if you were bees.
Additionally, because the AOP is ill-defined, and has been taken out of hand in some notable cases. Here is a good recent example:
This was the allegation thread: Occupier-9000 This wasn't a rape joke or sexual harassment: Occupier-9000 2 the other occupier image Note the users disagreeing with this are users who have a. Deleted their account b. Been the subject of banning proposals.
Now consider how this allegation matches up the AOP description of oppression: [AOP 3]
E: Banning
A general note on banning: Participate in /subredditcancer, a subreddit that calls out mod abuse, and you'll be banned in /a. That can't be because the mods have something to hide, right? No, the only justification that I've seen in that subreddit cancer had neonazis visit it. I don't know if that's true, but it certainly isn't a subreddit for neonazis. subreddit cancer 1
What follows are screenshots of a user being banned (including which mod is doing it) and then a screenshot of the best context I can find as to why they were banned, which often makes no sense when matched up to the reason given for the ban, and is often in a subreddit that's not /a. Remember that this is from the past few days, please check out the modlog if you'd like to see: http://transparency.dbzer0.com/modlog/anarchism/ . Users are being turned away daily without proper justification.
anarchism ban 1 aletoledo This poor user was super polite to an oddly ticked off punkswithcleankitchens . Lets say you disagree with this pretty innocuous statement about racism, you might try explaining the difference between systemic and non-systemic racism before you just outright ban someone. anarchism ban 13 context anarchism ban 6
anarchism ban 3 Spearton6 This user is shocked that he has been called a nazi supporter, but is banned for “fash” which I can only assume means fascism anarchism ban 3 context
anarchism ban 4 neightdog This user has an idea of men's rights that doesn't justify rape-- something you think would be widely encouraged. anarchism ban 4 context
anarchism ban 5 Fly-Bottle This user discusses, politely and non-violently, why Roosh V thinks women should be told to take precautions over rape. If you disagree with his sentiment then this is an opportunity to example why this is victim blaming. But instead he's banned. anarchism ban 5 context
anarchism ban 9 Kamiru_ This user was banned and then had to be muted, but I missed their submission to mod mail.
anarchism ban 10 louis_mandrin Another ban over supposed facism, which the user clearly is not. His posts even had to be removed for some reason. anarchism ban 10 context 2 anarchism ban 10 context
anarchism ban 11 Skaldskaldsson I'm not seeing facism? Is the reasoning “fashion” as in “this is not a fashionable opinion?” anarchism ban 11 context
anarchism ban 12 Cyphonocerinae I don't know what ludabug means, I thought it was a former user, but I don't see anything ban worthy here? anarchism ban 12 context
Clearly the mods don't like people who politely make their opinion on men's rights known. I'm no MRA but they can be important contributors to discussion, especially in preventing “I hate all men” sentiment.
How do the mods ban with such beautiful efficiency, often after a user's first post? Because they get notifications when a new user posts, of course: anarchism ban 7 This notification seems innocuous, until you realize that some mods look through new poster's history to ascertain if they agree or not, and therefore if that user can participate.
F: Conclusion/Alternatives
These problems have been around for a long time, and previous attempts at a solution have clearly failed. Many of these problems seem to stem back to unspecific policies from mods, and very hateful infighting between them. While PrinceK has begun another sub /leftwithoutedge, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised at a mass migration to somewhere else, I do think that the sub can be healed.
The AOP needs to be re-worked and clearer parameters need to be set out for mods. I think that /anarchism should follow the example of another heavily moderated subreddit (in my opinion anyway) which has been successful (in widespread opinion): CanadaPolitics. Here is their respect policy: http://www.reddit.com/CanadaPolitics/wiki/respect (full disclosure: my good friend mackiedrew is the head mod of this subreddit, and likely helped design this policy although I'm not sure to what extent).
Here is my proposed fusion between the respect policy and the existing AOP:
We want to have a free and open exchange of ideas to better serve the goals of anarchism. For the purpose of discussion, belief in systems of economic and political domination, i.e. capitalism or statism will be tolerated by our members, most of which do not agree with these systems. Keep in mind that we will try to convince you against these positions. To avoid abusive behaviour in this sub and to have the best possible discussion and activity on the sub, we ask you to follow these rules:

1. Do not stalk a user's overview
   
2. Do not call for karma brigades
   
3. Assume good faith. "The other guy" sincerely believes what they're saying, just as much as you do. Do them the courtesy of respecting their opinion, and do not call them a “concern troll” unless you have ample proof of their standing and are willing to provide that proof to a moderator.
   
4. Don't make personal insults. When in doubt, don't comment at all on the person you're responding to, just their argument. It doesn't matter if they spit on your dog this morning; those comments don't belong in this subreddit.
   
5. Don't make threats of physical violence against other users. This is against Reddit's rules. It includes wishing someone would commit physical violence on themselves, i.e. self harm and/or suicide. You will be banned for doing this. These further suggestions can help you be a respectful and productive commenter:
   
6. Play to the spectators, not your opponent. Especially in a heated debate, you'll almost never convince your opponent of whatever view you're trying to convey. Instead, remain calm, reasonable, and well-supported, and you might leave a good impression on others reading your debate. If your debate is on some horribly esoteric, personal, or out-of-date topic, just drop it.
   
7. Learn your opponents' views. Even if you don't agree with them, there's still value in knowing why "the other side" thinks the way they do. It's reflective of different values, policy priorities, or life experiences. By understanding where they're coming from, even if you never convince them of one particular point you might be better able to forge common cause on something else later on. Be inquisitive, not argumentative.
   

The /anarchism strategy for combating rule-breakers:

1. If you see a user break one of the above rules please use the report button to alert a moderator.
   
2. It is up to the whole community to make sure that mods do not abuse their power. All mod actions are reversible and flagrant abuses of mod power will be dealt with by community consensus.
   

There is another resource given at /CanadaPolitics that could be of use: Canada Politics comment policy
I think there also has to be some drastic action over the moderators. My suggestions as to what the community should do are as follows:
1.Vote to give sync0pate authority to remove all current moderators.

1. Have the community elect users as mods, who have previous modding experience that can be referred to as mod-character reference. No prior participants from /meta are eligible to become new mods. Ask ideal mods (people who work in successful subreddits) to work in the community on a trial basis of three months. They do not mod, they simply evaluate an /a moderator’s ability to follow the rules as they have been laid out. They remove moderators who cannot comply, and oversee the addition of new moderators. The decision of whether a mod should be removed will be in their hands, not sync0pate 's (for his own bloody sake as well).
   
2. Disband meta. It isn't working. It just isn't.
   
3. No community voting on banning individual users. Voting on basis for banning only. Meta posts allowed in /anarchism but reserved for discussing a change to the rules of banning/to call out moderator abuse. Report users who violate pre-existing rules. Mods immediately ban users who violate pre-existing rules, and only for their actions in /anarchism, no for comments in other subreddits.
   

G: In defense of my character
I would love to see /anarchism and its members healed, new members welcomed, violent threats reduced and discussion between mods civil and constructive. Please don't tell me that I'm being disingenuous, as is a common threat on /meta. As it stands this document is 4,243 words long and contains over 50 screenshots. I've put work into this. I care. Maybe one day I'll even make a little alt account and get to participate. I know that I would be banned right now,(before even making this post.) I also personally don't agree with the moderating strategy that I am advocating here, I would prefer any community I am in to be more lenient but I know that isn't what the users of /anarchism seem to want, nor do I think that would be successful considering the current state of the subreddit.