It feels a little embarrassing to be the last one in the group to chime in, but I suppose it’s fine. At least now I can see that the competition is running exactly as it should, and those who aren't just lazily throwing out guesses are actually being properly rewarded for their efforts. 🙈
Perhaps Kolinda made a similar remark during some visit to China—something along the lines of, "China is truly a magnificent and vast nation, but these neighbors of yours in Korea... if I were your president, I’d simply string up a fence at the border and dispatch some unarmed troops to keep an eye on them," all while taking a leisurely sip of a piña colada. Maybe that was the catalyst for our current predicament. 🤣
Spam creators—allegedly operating out of Korea this time—seem to believe they can turn a profit by hoping one out of every thousand threads gets enough traction to generate some kind of revenue for their clients. Essentially, we are looking at some sort of automated script masquerading as a genuine forum user.
We’ve already cleared up quite a few things here, yet we seem to be circling back to square one as if nothing was ever settled. Just to recap: there was all this talk about mass deletions of posts which, frankly, have only just begun—and we’ve already pointed out that we're looking at a handful of dozen posts compared to several hundred total deletions across the site. One moderator was even called out for an alleged "massacre," but we clarified that they were responsible for only a single-digit percentage of the total removals.
Then we had that unnecessary debate regarding the editing of posts. We responded quickly to explain that, as a rule, moderators don't edit posts (if anyone actually wants to verify this, feel free to scroll back through the thread and look for posts with moderator edits). Edits are only common in specific instances, such as when a photo is too large or for the opening post; in this case, the edit wasn't even about the content itself. At this point, authorship and the minor intellectual property concerns of users and moderators aren't really relevant because the edits in this thread weren't substantive.
There was also talk about a moderator being persecuted or having their influence restricted, which I personally debunked first, followed shortly by the moderator themselves.
And yet, we are right back where we started, acting as if these points haven't been resolved. We're even seeing people quoting entries from an hour ago from entirely different threads.
Once the cacophony dies down and the arguments over non-existent problems subside, everything boils down to this: the Politics moderators won't allow pre-election chatter to dominate this crucial foreign policy thread. We all understand how difficult it is to completely decouple the Visegrad Group and America's relationship with it from the daily political drama happening in the US during an election cycle, but that is precisely what we have to attempt. This topic is far too significant to let it be cheapened; discussions about communists, Big Brother, or what someone's father or grandfather did simply have no place here. This certainly doesn't mean the Visegrad Group can't be discussed in Politics during an election period. Quite the opposite—it *should* be part of the conversation. However, for that, we have the pre-election subforum. In that space, we even have chat areas separated by worldview (so you can easily move all the chatty banter from the Visegrad thread over there; participants will find much more lenient moderation there, which they won't find anywhere else on Politics since moderators don't just pick sides or vanish from threads by decree). We also have threads dedicated to major parties, key protagonists of the electoral process, and the option to open a specific pre-election thread regarding the Visegrad Group. A colleague asked why we don't do this for other topics. Well, by the admission of the participants in this very discussion, this specific topic is of vital importance to the elections. Issues like pardons or church subsidies don't carry the same weight because there isn't such intense disagreement between the main political players. For other topics, there is always the option to migrate to the pre-election subforum (or duplicate the thread, if it's important not to clutter the original, as is the case here) if the discussion heats up and turns primarily into pre-election campaigning.
We are going to end this debate now. The Visegrad thread continues, the elections continue, you can discuss the Visegrad Group on the election subforum, and we won't allow this existing Visegrad thread to be further muddied by electioneering or partisan bickering. That's that.
Let’s settle this whole business regarding edits once and for all... As a general rule, moderators don't edit posts. Especially here in Politics, where everyone knows that tampering with content can be an explosive move. We recently dealt with a situation where that line was crossed, and after being warned by my colleagues, myself, and the admin, it was made clear that such behavior is unacceptable. I believe we have moved past that. If you ever see someone’s post being edited again, please feel free to reach out to me directly.
That said, there are specific circumstances where moderators can—and indeed should—edit introductory posts. Here are the guidelines:
Anderlon said:Opening a thread
A well-constructed opening post is half the battle in creating a quality discussion. That is why the first post in a thread deserves special attention.
If you are quoting an outside source, you must cite the source and include a link if one is available.
The opening post cannot be a provocation or an invitation to bicker.
Low-quality threads will be deleted.
Threads that aren't perfectly formatted but show potential may be edited by a moderator.
Before starting a new thread, check to see if a similar one already exists. If it does, please contribute to the existing conversation rather than starting a new one. The forum's internal search and Google work perfectly fine for this.
Thread Title
The title must capture the essence of the topic and be entirely clear to a casual observer, allowing them to grasp the subject matter at a glance.
If the original poster fails to provide an adequate title, it is the moderator's duty to fix it.
When creating a title, we recommend keeping search engines (both our internal tool and Google) in mind. A thread is much easier to find if the title includes relevant keywords, ideally in their base form.
Adding a moderator warning to the first post (in this instance, the second post, as there was no room in the first) is a standard moderation intervention for an intro post. Furthermore, the owner of this site has emphasized multiple times that introductory posts must be cleaned up regarding grammar, must not contain problematic content, and should remain concise—serving primarily as a prompt for discussion. In short, moderators frequently adjust opening posts. This applies strictly to the introductory posts, but those are certainly subject to these rules.
Other people's warnings don't concern anyone else. But here we are—both participants in this thread have been flagged, though the impact felt different simply because of their prior standing before the strikes were issued.
Xi, when you find fault with someone's post, I ask that you please file an official report and specify exactly what the issue is within that report. If that process fails to yield a result, feel free to come here and provide links to the disputed posts that went unaddressed, along with a brief explanation of why they violated the rules.
Quite a lot has been said here; I’ll attempt to address a few points.
First off, there is absolutely no consideration of closing or deleting this thread regarding the Visegrad Group. That risk doesn't exist because I believe we can all agree that this is a significant foreign policy matter for the United States.
Secondly, I think we are in agreement that how we approach the Visegrad Group—both regarding membership and our relations with the V4 nations—is a matter of considerable importance for this election campaign. Because of that, I am more than willing to support moving the discussion about the Visegrad Group over to the election pdf. I believe it would be beneficial for everyone involved.
As for this current thread, I genuinely and quite seriously still maintain that turning it into an election topic—which is the current trend—would significantly degrade such a serious issue into our usual left-right bickering. After all, we all know this initiative began with Vaclav Havel, yet today, given the current political climate in America, the most important politician within the V4 is likely Viktor Orbán. If a leftist movement happened to be in power in the V4 countries, the positions during an American election period would probably be completely reversed; for instance, during Ivo Josipović's presidency, ideas about abolishing the presidency or having the Parliament elect the president came from the right, whereas now under Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, those same desires are coming from the left. With the election just three weeks away, we shouldn't expect anything less than the cheap pandering of a vital topic if we allow it to become an election-driven discussion outside of the election pdf. If it moves there, we all know it becomes an election topic, where arguments like "Ranko Ostojić is against it, while Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović is for it" would become its essential and defining feature. Therefore, let us open the topic on the election pdf and discuss our views on the V4 there, while leaving this high-quality, substantive main topic on the EU pdf to protect it from irreparable damage.
Regarding the accusations that moderators are destroying things by deleting posts, I don't see any reason to respond to such comments. All moderators of the politics section have the right and ability to moderate any thread. No one has been kicked out, and no one has been summoned. Please, let's not spread panic or start building conspiracy theories. Besides, the moderator being called out above had a single-digit percentage of interventions in this thread.
Edit: No one's post may be edited, nor should anyone dare to edit them, unless it concerns the very first post.
Listen, folks, let’s not descend into nonsense right now. The Visegrad Group isn't an election topic, and as for any pre-election debates—even those concerning the US and the Visegrad Group—please take them to the election sub-forum. It’s not as if there isn't enough room; you can post there as much as you like. Let's keep this specific thread for the usual daily political mudslinging and election season drama. Secondly, and finally, what is with all this moving around? For heaven's sake, slybison8 is a respected veteran here and a long-time moderator of Politics; I don't recall anyone ever questioning his authority, at least not since my time as a supermod.
The moderation team feels that the veteran protests in Washington, D.C. have moved past being a primary headline for some time now. (To be honest, we already addressed this in the linked thread, so I’m not entirely sure why the same question keeps surfacing.) I certainly look forward to the day when the refugee crisis also stops being such a pressing issue and becomes old news, but for the time being, attempting to draw comparisons between these two political matters is simply pointless.
So, I did a little digging... The post was accidentally removed but has since been restored, and you've already been briefed on the situation via private message. If the moderators or the site admins want to append anything to this specific matter regarding the deleted and reinstated post, they are more than welcome to do so. Until then, I’m going to close this thread; continuing this discussion would simply be an unnecessary misuse of the appeals process.
Criticism is one thing, but this? This is something else entirely. People have repeatedly asked for actual evidence to back up these claims, yet nothing ever surfaces. Instead, we just get this endless, sweeping condemnation that could be aimed at anyone, anywhere. The only specific grievance brought forward was regarding the moderation of comments within the thread and the removal of certain posts—both of which are standard, necessary moderator actions. If you decide to start another thread next time, please find a way to substantiate your arguments rather than just attacking individuals. A digital lynching isn't going to fly here.
It’s been quiet in here since yesterday... Honestly, either back up your grievances with some actual substance or let's just call it a night. I realize we're right in the thick of election season, but there's really no reason to mimic those politicians by being vague and hurling baseless accusations.
Freedom is currently serving an accumulative ban, and I’ve personally tacked on an extra week due to their repeated offenses. I believe we have everything settled for the time being.
Suppose I were to argue that the lyrics of Jack Houdak carry satanic undertones—that his entire body of work is actually a calculated attempt to dismantle the core values of our civilization. If I were to go so far as to label him a messenger of Satan and a traitor to the human race, and then someone comes along and deletes my thread for "posting nonsense," I would have to ask: how exactly can the betrayal of humanity and the service of Satan be considered mere nonsense? That’s the gist of it. I shall leave the matter there for now. Reach out to whomever you feel compelled to contact if you believe it necessary.
The secondary question you raised was answered promptly; if you feel the need, feel free to reach out to the owner directly to discuss whatever is bothering you. Though, perhaps such a step isn't even necessary at this stage. Every PDF board has its own moderators—who are listed on the forum root before you even enter a subforum—as well as supermoderators, and collectively, we all have admins available. There is certainly no shortage of people to turn to regarding specific inquiries or issues.
As for everything else, the job of a moderator is to moderate, which largely involves steering discussions and shutting down certain threads. I won't—nor do I wish to—comment on every single topic of yours that has been removed, but I did take a quick glance at the last four or five posts of yours deleted from the Politics section, and they were all taken down for valid reasons. A forum might be a freer medium than, say, a scientific symposium, but that doesn't mean one can wander around posting nonsense about, for instance, treason, regardless of how serious you might consider your own arguments to be.
neonfox12 said:William Bennett53, how on earth am I supposed to interpret his message? What kind of sentiment is he actually trying to convey here? "Fortunately for you, I'm not a moderator for this football forum, otherwise, someone using such provocative rhetoric would have been banned after their first three posts."?
Let me be clear: I am here to reach an understanding and to have someone explain why I am being targeted. Am I lying? Have I insulted anyone there? Do I flip-flop on my positions like a cheap pair of socks? What, exactly, is my transgression?
Here we go again... If you truly believe someone is provoking you, just report them. But if you’re asking for an opinion on why your post was flagged as trolling, receive the answer, and then stubbornly insist that the person responding is threatening you—even though they don't even moderate the forum in question—then you aren't the victim. You're the troll.