Website "debunking" holocaust denial?

[goyim terror alarm]

I don't think it was deniers being banned but some exterminationists. This is a touchy subject and exterminationists seem to lose objectivity.

To my knowledge bans are rare, and if revisionists or deniers have been banned it was likely for verbal abuse, failure to follow forum guidelines, being unduly disruptive and not contributing to debate.

I mistyped. I meant to say banned for not being. It's fixed now.

[SanityCheck]

What was this RODOH forum? Was it actually "real open debate on the holocaust"? And was the old CODOH forum in 2006 banning people for not being revisionists or is there something that they're not telling us?

The long-running moderator of the original CODOH forum, Hannover, was an insecure dick, to be blunt. He had several spats also with revisionists over the years who left the forum in disgust, so his tolerance for non-revisionists was pretty low, and yes, several of the HC bloggers had been banned from CODOH forum by 2006, some had a patient style some were more aggressive. I wasn't around at that time (2003-2005) and joined the original CODOH forum later, to post some factual corrections and not much more. But I too was silently banned at some point well before the original forum went offline. The original CODOH forum improved greatly when Hannover retired.

[Archie]

I gave some of the history of the CODOH forum here:

https://codohforum.com/app.php/about-us

I think the timeline is roughly as follows (some of this was before my time)

1990s - CODOH bbs (this eventually got shut down)
2002 - Hannover's Revisionist Forum launched (initially independent, at some point it was sponsored by CODOH)
2004? - RODOH launched (there have been at least three iterations of it)
Jan 2024 - The entire CODOH site goes down including the forum
Sep 2024 - CODOH forum rebooted at a new URL

RODOH is still around, although it is semi-private right now. Scott is the man behind RODOH and he is also a member here (Nazgul as well). If you want to get the full story there, he would be the one to ask. Whatever "beef" may have existed between CODOH and RODOH is water under the bridge at this point. We are all on good terms and many of us have posted on both sites.
https://rodoh.info/forum/

As far as moderation philosophy, a few years ago there was a noticeable different between CODOH and RODOH. CODOH was more firmly revisionist and was strictly moderated. RODOH was more "balanced" (though still leaned revisionist). I will defend Hannover a little bit and say that I fully understand why he ran such a tight ship. When you let antis post freely you get a few trolls that clutter up all the discussions and keep things going in circles bringing up the same old points over and over. They will pivot from one thing to other and won't let you pin them down on anything. On Hannover's forum, most the threads stayed on topic and there was a high signal to noise ratio. The downside was that there wasn't always enough pushback to keep us honest.

At this relaunched version of CODOH, as a compromise between the two approaches I split things into two boards. We have the Debate board which is loosely moderated ("RODOH" style). But we also have a Revisionist board where we can talk without having trolls bog everything down (Hannover style). I think it's working pretty well. I do find some of the debate threads to have a somewhat poor signal to noise ratio (looking at you, Nessie) but it's just not worth the effort to micromanage the discussions. Plus, I think it is instructive for people to see what tactics and arguments are employed by the other side (and to give our guys some sparring partners).

On this forum, out of 100 members thus far, only 2 have been banned and neither were anti-revisionists. And I added a banned rank so that people can see exactly who has been banned.

[goyim terror alarm]

On this forum, out of 100 members thus far, only 2 have been banned and neither were anti-revisionists. And I added a banned rank so that people can see exactly who has been banned.

The people who have been banned are definitely... strange
But this one did say that 6 million jews died, so wouldn't that technically make him an anti-revisionist? So that is a slightly inaccurate statement.

Why do you claim to be a revisionized? Everyone knows 6 million jews were murdered.

The truth matters. NAZI does not mean National Socialist any more than Nigger means black skinned person.

If you are a jew, than of course you want everyone to label your greatest enemy as Niggers/NAZI/Idiots.

This CODOH revisionist site cannot be taken seriously when moderators use the word NIGGER/NAZI to label an entire people.

I'd guess that this is possibly a "JIDF" troll trying to cause disruption by claiming to support the "kill everyone" caricature the Jews made out of Hitler and dying on weird hills like the "nazi is a slur" one, or just a normal non-ideological troll.

[Nessie]

On the contrary, exterminationists argue based on what exists, an extrapolation. We revisionists are only content with what actually exists, we do not make speculations to arrive at a certain preconceived result.

Revisionists ignore 100% of the eyewitness evidence and can only theorise about what could have happened inside the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas, without being able to evidence, let alone agree.

Do 100% of eyewitnesses claim gas chambers?

Yes, 100% of those who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, who saw what was happening and are therefore eyewitnesses, state that those places were used for mass gassings. There are zero witnesses who worked at those places who say that another process took place that did not involve mass killings.

We in fact dispute a small fraction of testimonies that give contradictory, often ridiculous descriptions of "gas chambers" that cannot be otherwise confirmed.

In which case, do you accept the larger fraction of eyewitnesses to gassings at those places?

[Archie]

On this forum, out of 100 members thus far, only 2 have been banned and neither were anti-revisionists. And I added a banned rank so that people can see exactly who has been banned.

The people who have been banned are definitely... strange
But this one did say that 6 million jews died, so wouldn't that technically make him an anti-revisionist? So that is a slightly inaccurate statement.

Why do you claim to be a revisionized? Everyone knows 6 million jews were murdered.

The truth matters. NAZI does not mean National Socialist any more than Nigger means black skinned person.

If you are a jew, than of course you want everyone to label your greatest enemy as Niggers/NAZI/Idiots.

This CODOH revisionist site cannot be taken seriously when moderators use the word NIGGER/NAZI to label an entire people.

I'd guess that this is possibly a "JIDF" troll trying to cause disruption by claiming to support the "kill everyone" caricature the Jews made out of Hitler and dying on weird hills like the "nazi is a slur" one, or just a normal non-ideological troll.

That guy thought we were Jewish controlled opposition and not sufficiently pro-Nazi, er, sorry, pro-National Socialist.

If most people claiming to be national socialist are really jewish controlled opposition, than we all must reject their usage of deragatory and jewish hate speech.

We must stop labelling the greatest people to ever exist in the world as NIGGERS/NAZIs/IDIOTS. We must stop being brainwashed by jews.

I don't know if he believes in the Holocaust or not, but if so he would be in the "it happened and it was a good thing" camp. A variant of this is the "it didn't happen but it should have" camp. These positions are not that common.

To clarify, he did not get banned for his views per se. And I didn't have a problem with the topic he raised either. It was more the combination of crazy views plus the accusations plus the aggression plus the poor quality of his posts.

[fireofice]

This seems to be selling a PDF and I don't exactly want to link this kind of thing to my credit card information

I don't really worry about things like that. Buying a revisionist book doesn't necessarily mean you endorse the contents.