Deleting posts

Alright. I don't feel like I was going off-topic, but whatever.

Anyway, I have a general question that I actually posted on another thread here a few days ago, but I never got an answer. Where am I supposed to go to comment on moderation if I can't even do it over on the PŽK?

Matthew Castillo5 said:My post on that thread got nuked too (I'll go into more detail over in the "Appeals Against Cards" thread), and I didn't even mention Bitorajac—let alone any of those rumors floating around about him. I was just responding with actual arguments to that trolling post from the moderator Bradley Sanders4. It wasn't until after that that the lonebadger6 moderator stepped in with a warning not to discuss America, yet Bradley Sanders4's trolling post stayed right where it was. Even The Judgement's post was left up—he responded in basically the same way I did, just much more aggressive—along with Bradley Sanders4's reply to him. There was absolutely zero legitimate reason to delete my post, and to top it all off, I ended up getting a card because I reposted it, genuinely believing there had been some technical glitch and it hadn't actually hit the forum.

What exactly makes my post "trolling"? I see you're making a habit of repeating that. I didn't start any debate; I just responded to the claim that René Bitorajac would end up behind bars by pointing out two famous examples of satire where nobody actually went to jail. Maybe they should have just nuked the whole thread. But even if they did, it still doesn't make my post trolling.

Essentially, the entire PZK exists to handle appeals regarding moderation, yet these very appeals are what maintain order and keep things organized. In other words, when discussing an appeal that triggered a thread, the arguments need to be transparent, well-documented, and specific...

Bradley Sanders4 said:What exactly makes my post "trolling"? I see you're making a habit of repeating that. I didn't start any debate; I just responded to the claim that René Bitorajac would end up behind bars by pointing out two famous examples of satire where nobody actually went to jail. Maybe they should have just nuked the whole thread. But even if they did, it still doesn't make my post trolling.

I laid this all out in my deleted post (which you can see, since you're the moderator here). You didn't just use two examples—you used three. And all three were from the eighties, back when throwing people in prison for stuff like that wasn't the norm anymore. Before the era of the old regime ended, you could practically get locked up just for telling a joke or singing an indecent song.
(Hopefully, I won't get penalized just for talking back to you)

Personally, I think it would be best to just wrap things up—lock down that thread on Politics and this one too—since it’s all just endless nonsense at this point. It’s nothing more than typical flame wars jumping from one post to the next... nothing new, nothing profound, just a bunch of repetitive topics circling the drain.

Just my 2 cents ☕

You’re right on one count, but if we go down that road, we’ll end up opening five more threads about how the moderators aren't doing their jobs because it’s just easier to lock everything down. And apparently, when a thread has five decent people having a conversation surrounded by fifty trolls—which is exactly what happens all the time, as she pointed out—that’s considered "irrelevant." It gets exhausting constantly explaining things when you're dealing with the same crowd over and over, not to mention when you're talking about colleagues...

Look, apologies to the user I'm mentioning here—Brenda Taylor13—regarding this thread about René Bitorajac. I don't agree with a single word he wrote, not one. Yet, all his posts are still sitting there; none of them are even remotely close to getting a ban, and nobody has even thought about flagging him or deleting his comments. He thinks the exact opposite of me, and every single thing he said in that thread contradicts my view completely. But his posts stay up. How does that work? How is that possible when us "evil moderators" are supposedly busy scrubbing "other opinions"...

EDIT: p.s. This isn't saying moderators never mess up; of course they do. But honestly, the constant outbursts about "defending other opinions" have become so tiresome. Especially on threads where 90% of those opinions fall into that category. And usually, the "opinions" that get flagged on this forum are the ones most often protected by the law, or they're just straight-up disgusting.

Matthew Castillo5 said:I laid this all out in my deleted post (which you can see, since you're the moderator here). You didn't just use two examples—you used three. And all three were from the eighties, back when throwing people in prison for stuff like that wasn't the norm anymore. Before the era of the old regime ended, you could practically get locked up just for telling a joke or singing an indecent song.
(Hopefully, I won't get penalized just for talking back to you)

There was the Top Surrealists list and Neue Slowenische Kunst, if I recall correctly. That old regime lasted well after the leader died, and I purposely pulled those specific examples to show that the idea of going to prison for satire isn't exactly an absolute rule—plus, it’s a good way to remember what actual satire looks like, unlike the nonsense RB is pulling lately. It doesn't mean people weren't jailed back then, obviously. But honestly, it's irrelevant; talking about that era is about as useful here as talking about Pakistan. Mentioning it doesn't make me some nostalgic sympathizer. Besides, we moved past that whole era so that in a free America, we can actually mock things freely. Among other things.

Mark Harris66 said:René's moral authority actually matters here—mostly because he’s drawing a paycheck from the public treasury. In my view, anyone getting paid by US taxpayers needs to be a responsible citizen... they shouldn't be fueling negative social trends. If anything, they should be doing their job to the best of their ability for the common good of society. He can do whatever he wants at home—as long as he isn't breaking any US laws, I don't really care—but his public persona is a whole different story.

I'm not quite sure which specific post you're replying to, but you haven't actually addressed my point, even though it feels like you're aiming it right at me! If we were discussing whether it's justifiable to fund artists with questionable past works using public money, then we'd be on topic. Right now, this just feels like a classic case of "poisoning the well" regarding the actual subject of the debate.

Mark Harris66 said:I’m definitely not one for censorship. René can say whatever he wants—really—but you shouldn't bash an entire society through broad generalizations. There’s such a thing as constructive criticism. It just felt wrong seeing someone who hasn't exactly been a role model themselves turn around and lecture everyone else...
That’s just plain hypocrisy.
Even the high school enrollment situation says a lot. The way he got in (along with those other "safety net" types) compared to all the students who went through the honest, transparent process—based on actual entrance exams and grades—sent a message that being dishonest actually pays off. He could have told parents he wouldn't be enrolling that way—especially since there were kids who could've pulled strings but didn't, choosing instead to go where they earned their spot via the exam.
A message like that teaches kids that dishonesty isn't punished—it's actually rewarded. How can we expect kids to stay moral when they learn that lesson so early? And then the same dishonest people wonder what's wrong with society, even though they aren't following its rules themselves. Not to mention that violent incident.
Honestly, that part really rubbed me the wrong way.
I condemn any crime, regardless of who commits it.
Someone mentioned Luka Bulić. If he had sung that song, I might not have said anything—since he does satirical songs about Americans too, and I'm all for free speech—but so far, there's no record of him committing a criminal offense, so let's just say his credibility is much higher.

Mark Harris66 said:I’m definitely not one for censorship. René can say whatever he wants—really—but you shouldn't bash an entire society through broad generalizations. There’s such a thing as constructive criticism. It just felt wrong seeing someone who hasn't exactly been a role model themselves turn around and lecture everyone else...
That’s just plain hypocrisy.
Even the high school enrollment situation says a lot. The way he got in (along with those other "safety net" types) compared to all the students who went through the honest, transparent process—based on actual entrance exams and grades—sent a message that being dishonest actually pays off. He could have told parents he wouldn't be enrolling that way—especially since there were kids who could've pulled strings but didn't, choosing instead to go where they earned their spot via the exam.
A message like that teaches kids that dishonesty isn't punished—it's actually rewarded. How can we expect kids to stay moral when they learn that lesson so early? And then the same dishonest people wonder what's wrong with society, even though they aren't following its rules themselves. Not to mention that violent incident.
Honestly, that part really rubbed me the wrong way.
I condemn any crime, regardless of who commits it.
Someone mentioned Luka Bulić. If he had sung that song, I might not have said anything—since he does satirical songs about Americans too, and I'm all for free speech—but so far, there's no record of him committing a criminal offense, so let's just say his credibility is much higher.

First off, I haven't been able to find any relevant data proving his school enrollment was compromised.
I'm not saying it's a lie, but I haven't found a single reliable source online to back that claim up.
Secondly, why should one person be allowed to say something without facing censorship while someone else is shut down because they did something completely unrelated to the current situation?
Does this mean René for the rest of his life
no longer has the credibility to point out societal issues?

Over 90% of the world's data isn't even online. And out of everything you *can* find on the web, nearly three-quarters is just the invisible web.
It’s wild to think that if something isn't posted online, it basically doesn't exist—right? (Not to mention, decent investigative journalism pretty much vanished a long time ago).
René started his first year of high school back in September 1986. The school was "Cezakum," the so-called "Culture" academy. Its successors today are the 2nd and 7th High Schools.
Where on earth are you going to find the school archives or entrance exam results from those years online?😁.
The proof is sitting in the school archives. Maybe that stuff has already been moved over to the State Archives...

Mark Harris66 said:Over 90% of the world's data isn't even online. And out of everything you *can* find on the web, nearly three-quarters is just the invisible web.
It’s wild to think that if something isn't posted online, it basically doesn't exist—right? (Not to mention, decent investigative journalism pretty much vanished a long time ago).
René started his first year of high school back in September 1986. The school was "Cezakum," the so-called "Culture" academy. Its successors today are the 2nd and 7th High Schools.
Where on earth are you going to find the school archives or entrance exam results from those years online?😁.
The proof is sitting in the school archives. Maybe that stuff has already been moved over to the State Archives...

Yeah,
I get where you're coming from,
but it's also a little weird.
You somehow have access to those archives
and managed to dig up all those specific details about René Bitorajac from them.

Seriously, can someone who actually knows how things work here explain why my post in the René Bitorajac thread got nuked?

Feel free to just shoot me a DM if you want—you can delete this too, whatever—I just really wanted an explanation.

--I mean, isn't there some basic level of courtesy expected when you're deleting someone's post?--

lonebadger6 said:You’re right on one count, but if we go down that road, we’ll end up opening five more threads about how the moderators aren't doing their jobs because it’s just easier to lock everything down. And apparently, when a thread has five decent people having a conversation surrounded by fifty trolls—which is exactly what happens all the time, as she pointed out—that’s considered "irrelevant." It gets exhausting constantly explaining things when you're dealing with the same crowd over and over, not to mention when you're talking about colleagues...

Look, apologies to the user I'm mentioning here—Brenda Taylor13—regarding this thread about René Bitorajac. I don't agree with a single word he wrote, not one. Yet, all his posts are still sitting there; none of them are even remotely close to getting a ban, and nobody has even thought about flagging him or deleting his comments. He thinks the exact opposite of me, and every single thing he said in that thread contradicts my view completely. But his posts stay up. How does that work? How is that possible when us "evil moderators" are supposedly busy scrubbing "other opinions"...

EDIT: p.s. This isn't saying moderators never mess up; of course they do. But honestly, the constant outbursts about "defending other opinions" have become so tiresome. Especially on threads where 90% of those opinions fall into that category. And usually, the "opinions" that get flagged on this forum are the ones most often protected by the law, or they're just straight-up disgusting.

Not a single word, huh? 😁

Seriously, what did I write that was so terrible that you can't agree with even one syllable of it...🤔

Bradley Sanders4 said:What exactly makes my post "trolling"? I see you're making a habit of repeating that. I didn't start any debate; I just responded to the claim that René Bitorajac would end up behind bars by pointing out two famous examples of satire where nobody actually went to jail. Maybe they should have just nuked the whole thread. But even if they did, it still doesn't make my post trolling.

I was scrolling through this thread this afternoon, right when it hit about a hundred posts. If you're referring to someone else and not this specific post, then I'll just go ahead and throw myself under a bus now...

But if you *are* talking about this post, buckle up, because here we go.
Getting into his character isn't—and shouldn't be—the main point of this thread, but damn, here we are. We could spend all day bickering over semantics—whether it's "trolling," "flaming," or just some kind of snarky sarcasm—but one thing is crystal clear: that post (specifically those first two sentences, let's be real) does absolutely nothing to lower the tension in this thread. And honestly, as the moderator of this damn subforum, it's your job to keep that tension at a minimum. You're failing at it—not because you lack experience, knowledge, or the actual skill, but because you're being extremist and impulsive. Which, funny enough, are basically the exact opposite of the qualities you need in a moderator. 🙂

None of this would even be an issue if you were acting alone. You could have your little Don Quixote moment, charging at nuclear power plants armed with nothing but nothing, and frankly, I wouldn't give a damn. But you aren't alone; there are other people here whose usernames are sitting right next to yours on the front page. Even if you don't care about your own credibility or authority, at least do it for their sake and just stop for a second. 🙂

I’d love to believe I'm not just barking at the moon here, but I've lived too long and spent too much time on this forum to keep swallowing fairy tales from the Brothers Grimm.

Thanks for listening, folks.

I totally agree that we shouldn't be dragging people into the fray here on Politics if they aren't actually politically active—but, you know, if they decide to shove themselves into the political spotlight themselves... like how René did with this song—then well, the hunting season is officially open, and they really shouldn't expect any special protection for their persona or their art. ☕

Brenda Taylor13 said:Not a single word, huh? 😁

Seriously, what did I write that was so terrible that you can't agree with even one syllable of it...🤔

😁 Nothing bad, really, it's just that we see this specific case through completely different lenses and interpret everything in total opposition to each other...

Bradley Sanders4 said:I think we’ve already explained countless times that when it comes to threads about politicians or people whose actions actually shape policy and the daily lives of citizens, we allow for much harsher criticism and a wider range of discussion. These are the people we elect, the ones we pay, and the ones who impact everyone's life in this country. René Bitorajac doesn't fall into any of those categories. Sure, he’s a public figure, but politically speaking, he’s totally irrelevant. Discussing his entire persona and career is more suited for a gossip thread on the Kokošinjac subforum than in Politics.

Talking about René Bitorajac’s credibility would only be on-topic if it were directly related to what he actually does. For instance, if he were chosen as the face of an anti-violence campaign, then his physical altercation with a security guard would be fair game. But that’s not the case here. It’s not because we’re some obsessed fans of René Bitorajac trying to shield him from scrutiny; it’s because your posts were textbook examples of ad hominem attacks—basically just attempts to discredit a message by attacking the person delivering it. Again, the subject isn't René Bitorajac; it's his song. Whether or not he got into school or college through connections is completely irrelevant, especially since that isn't verified, public info, but just pure gossip. I have to admit, the specific order of your posts is exactly why they were deleted. If you had started with the physical assault, maybe they might have stayed, but since you kicked things off with rumors and then doubled down on this, it was obvious your only goal was to shift the focus from the work to the individual. Since this thread is open so we can discuss the art, I decided to pull the posts that were steering us away from that.

Kolinda isn't the topic, and even if she were, look at the first paragraph. We allow much more leeway when criticizing politicians. (Note: I specifically deleted the particularly nasty comments about her appearance because I find them sexist and out of line.) Let's go back to the parallel here. If someone commented on Lozančić's dismissal by calling her fat, that comment would have been deleted too. The same goes for a comment claiming someone got into high school through nepotism. It's irrelevant and off-topic.

And finally, I have to say I'm pretty disappointed by this whole thread. It’s unusual and frankly unprofessional for a moderator to address another moderator via the PŽK. Especially since you know exactly where to find us.

So much for transparency—and the supposed end of the old guard's grip on power. Is anyone actually surprised? 👍

Bradley Sanders4 said:Sorry, I didn't quite catch your drift there. Could you clear that up for me?

I don't see what's so unclear—really?
I’d say this guy would actually be a real leftist if he tackled the actual issues that leftist critique requires—instead of just generalizing everything under this new wave of American quasi-fascism—but my post gets deleted. Is anyone even listening?
Is that actually normal to you?

Generally speaking—what is with this approach to censorship on the Politics forum? One side gets to write whatever they want and troll at will, while everyone else just finds their posts deleted preemptively. Is that how we're playing things now?
Could you all try taking a more objective stance for once—stepping away from the topics you moderate—and actually realize that different viewpoints exist? 😲

Which aren't necessarily criminal just by existing—right?
It feels a bit surreal—if I’ve read the room correctly—to be explaining this to the leftists.

Given that you're calling for their excellencies to convene and settle things behind closed doors—handcuffs included—I have my doubts about whether anyone actually understands what’s going on here.

William Gonzalez3 is going down—all because of the irony of it all. Honestly, aren't you all a bit embarrassed to be publicly slapping down one of your own like this? Unbelievable.

He earned it simply because he has zero interest in moderating Politics

feralpilot0 said:So much for transparency—and the supposed end of the old guard's grip on power. Is anyone actually surprised? 👍

I don't see what's so unclear—really?
I’d say this guy would actually be a real leftist if he tackled the actual issues that leftist critique requires—instead of just generalizing everything under this new wave of American quasi-fascism—but my post gets deleted. Is anyone even listening?
Is that actually normal to you?

Generally speaking—what is with this approach to censorship on the Politics forum? One side gets to write whatever they want and troll at will, while everyone else just finds their posts deleted preemptively. Is that how we're playing things now?
Could you all try taking a more objective stance for once—stepping away from the topics you moderate—and actually realize that different viewpoints exist? 😲

Which aren't necessarily criminal just by existing—right?
It feels a bit surreal—if I’ve read the room correctly—to be explaining this to the leftists.

Given that you're calling for their excellencies to convene and settle things behind closed doors—handcuffs included—I have my doubts about whether anyone actually understands what’s going on here.

William Gonzalez3 is going down—all because of the irony of it all. Honestly, aren't you all a bit embarrassed to be publicly slapping down one of your own like this? Unbelievable.

Look, it’s not like people can just say whatever they feel like. I’ve had a few of my own posts wiped, and honestly, I hold a totally different view on this than you do...🤷
Maybe not every single deletion was for a good reason, but there was seriously no need to derail the whole thing into a personal attack on René Bitorajac. I mean, you could dig up dirt on pretty much anyone, but I don't see how that calls into question whether his specific action was right or wrong.

Alex Miller3 said:Look, it’s not like people can just say whatever they feel like. I’ve had a few of my own posts wiped, and honestly, I hold a totally different view on this than you do...🤷
Maybe not every single deletion was for a good reason, but there was seriously no need to derail the whole thing into a personal attack on René Bitorajac. I mean, you could dig up dirt on pretty much anyone, but I don't see how that calls into question whether his specific action was right or wrong.

For all we know, maybe Monica Lewinsky was just trying to fix a stuck zipper. Who knows?