The Visegrad Group thread massacre has begun...

She left Politics because of the immigration debate, then she came back just for the elections, as if I should head over to the Visegrad section just to find and encounter this total shitstorm. Don't single that out. I guess the elections are kind of the climax of this whole topic, which was never meant to be some polite debate club; it had a specific purpose. Maybe we could just leave things as they were and let slybison8 handle the moderation like usual. I don't mean to say you have bad intentions or anything, but I think you're making a mistake—even the smallest interventions seem to trigger massive pushback. There’s a real sense of freedom there; people were coming in to talk about the migrant crisis, they even touched on the regional Big Brother, and everything stayed on topic without ever spiraling into the PŽK. It was never an issue. Please, jump in, share your thoughts, disagree if you must, but maybe just let slybison8 moderate on his own. Or honestly, better yet, just moderate yourselves. This is such a great discussion; it doesn't need saving. I guess I wonder, why are you doing this?

Bradley White73 said:She left Politics because of the immigration debate, then she came back just for the elections, as if I should head over to the Visegrad section just to find and encounter this total shitstorm. Don't single that out. I guess the elections are kind of the climax of this whole topic, which was never meant to be some polite debate club; it had a specific purpose. Maybe we could just leave things as they were and let slybison8 handle the moderation like usual. I don't mean to say you have bad intentions or anything, but I think you're making a mistake—even the smallest interventions seem to trigger massive pushback. There’s a real sense of freedom there; people were coming in to talk about the migrant crisis, they even touched on the regional Big Brother, and everything stayed on topic without ever spiraling into the PŽK. It was never an issue. Please, jump in, share your thoughts, disagree if you must, but maybe just let slybison8 moderate on his own. Or honestly, better yet, just moderate yourselves. This is such a great discussion; it doesn't need saving. I guess I wonder, why are you doing this?

I just wanted to clarify that nobody has stopped me from moderating this thread or any others. So, I suppose there isn't really a need for all this extra drama. I've been incredibly busy in my day-to-day life lately, so I haven't had much time to check Forum.hr, and that's really all there is to it.

I'm not entirely sure what kind of chaos is unfolding there right now, but I hope to be back in a day or two, and then I'll see if there's anything I can do to help calm things down. 🙂

As of right now, I truly don't have the time or the energy to get deeply involved in these ongoing disputes.

Best to everyone.

slybison8 said:I just wanted to clarify that nobody has stopped me from moderating this thread or any others. So, I suppose there isn't really a need for all this extra drama. I've been incredibly busy in my day-to-day life lately, so I haven't had much time to check Forum.hr, and that's really all there is to it.

I'm not entirely sure what kind of chaos is unfolding there right now, but I hope to be back in a day or two, and then I'll see if there's anything I can do to help calm things down. 🙂

As of right now, I truly don't have the time or the energy to get deeply involved in these ongoing disputes.

Best to everyone.

It’s nothing major—they’re just editing the opening posts and suggesting we split the thread into daily politics and literary prose sections, stuff like that. But hey, I suppose it’s good to stay in the loop so you don't end up totally out of touch. 🍿

Posts are edited according to standard moderator practices and common sense...

Can we please stop beating a dead horse and move on?

Michelle Evans said:Posts are edited according to standard moderator practices and common sense...

Can we please stop beating a dead horse and move on?

Install an extension to view edit history, then you can argue all you want. Until then, nobody touches my posts without me knowing. We’ve seen enough nonsense on the politics board—editing after deleting, all that garbage.

There is a ban on moderators editing posts, and I can dig up proof if necessary. Bottom line: editing posts is prohibited!

There is zero reason to alter someone's post without their consent. A post is a person's own work; adding or changing content is unacceptable, especially when there's a shady intent to wipe out a topic or push an author off the forum.

You’ll probably claim I’m lying, but those of us who have lived through this for years know exactly what the truth is.

So, leave my posts alone. Write your own thoughts and edit those instead.

This is taken directly from the general rules issued by Anderlon back in 2010.

Posts on this Forum represent solely the views and opinions of the authors, not the Forum publisher, moderators, or administrators. Forum.hr does not take responsibility for the content of messages or the opinions expressed within them.

Despite the dedicated work of the moderators, it is possible for posts that violate the Forum rules to remain active. To have such messages removed, the moderators or administrators must be notified.

In the event that litigious messages are published, the aggrieved party may sue the author of the post. This should be understood by both the authors themselves and those who feel harmed by such messages. Forum.hr is obligated to provide identifying information upon the presentation of a court order or police warrant (and only upon the presentation of such documents).

Basically, everyone is individually responsible for everything they write and bears any resulting sanctions.

From this section alone, it’s clear that an author must be notified if their thoughts or contributions to the forum are decided to be "reshaped" in any way.

Sam Green73 is therefore obligated to moderate any post that has already passed through moderator control after a certain amount of time and notify the user. Otherwise, it isn't just a breach of trust with the community—it puts users in a position where they are being judged for words they didn't actually say in that altered context.

If I recall correctly, there is even a rule somewhere stating that posts shouldn't be reshaped during a standard "quote," so I don't see why moderators would have the right to do this without the author's explicit consent. If a post bothers you, delete it, but you have an obligation to inform the author—someone who is enriching this forum with their own topics, contributions, and intellectual property, and bringing in new users for you.

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.

William Bennett53 said: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:

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.

Was some message bolded just for me?

This thread started a topic that has racked up 270,000 views. If you ask me, it was opened with damn high quality.

And sorry, the opening post was edited and fixed grammatically about a year and a half ago.
No further edits are needed. Grammatically, it's perfectly fine.

No, no, that isn't the case. I only remembered the length because one of my introductory pieces was criticized specifically for it.

It seems like everything actually boilsotted down to the moment Sam Green73 spotted the potential for this topic and decided to dig back eighteen months just to finally get the conversation properly off the ground. 🐔
@Dorian, just one quick thought before I head out: please, just leave the election commentary alone over there. People are watching it; they might not be posting much, but they’re definitely keeping an eye on things because of it. My advice? Don't touch anything or try to fix problems that aren't even real. At best, you just end up looking like you don't know what you're doing, and at worst, it starts looking like soft censorship.

I don’t quite get it—if a three-digit number of posts were actually deleted, what exactly was being scrubbed? These are posts from months ago; why bother now?

Attempting to have a serious discussion about political options here is absurd; it’s like claiming you can breathe without any oxygen. If a politician makes a positive or negative comment regarding the Visegrad Group, we aren't allowed to comment on the "America and Visegrad Group" thread? That is some truly fascinating logic right there.
The relationship between domestic politics and the Visegrad Group has become a daily headline in the news, yet here, censorship starts to kick in. You claim this has turned into a right-wing chatroom and tell us to move elsewhere, but what if someone from the left or someone just looking for a neutral perspective wants to discuss America's potential involvement with the Visegrad Group or our government's official stance? They are shut down immediately.

You have entire threads under politics where people drone on about shoes, dresses, someone's kids, or psychiatric sessions, and you find all of that perfectly acceptable and unmoderated. But the moment anyone discusses the American political stance toward the Visegrad Group on the "America and Visegrad Group" topic, suddenly it's an issue. Bravo.🤦

Bradley White73 said:It seems like everything actually boilsotted down to the moment Sam Green73 spotted the potential for this topic and decided to dig back eighteen months just to finally get the conversation properly off the ground. 🐔
@Dorian, just one quick thought before I head out: please, just leave the election commentary alone over there. People are watching it; they might not be posting much, but they’re definitely keeping an eye on things because of it. My advice? Don't touch anything or try to fix problems that aren't even real. At best, you just end up looking like you don't know what you're doing, and at worst, it starts looking like soft censorship.

Wait, did Charles Fox10, the veteran moderator of the Politics section, actually look into this supposed "masking" and "fantasy" thread? He’s claiming three posts were deleted in just ten days.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a matter of being banned or suspended, does it? Deleted.And here we have someone talking about "censorship," "ideological bias" in this or that, "massacres," and so on.

Charles Fox10 said:Continuing my tally of deleted posts... over the last ten days or so, three more posts have been wiped from this thread. Some users haven't even managed to write a single original thought before jumping in to weigh in on the massacre.

Susan Price30 said:Wait, did Charles Fox10, the veteran moderator of the Politics section, actually look into this supposed "masking" and "fantasy" thread? He’s claiming three posts were deleted in just ten days.

It doesn't necessarily have to be a matter of being banned or suspended, does it? Deleted.And here we have someone talking about "censorship," "ideological bias" in this or that, "massacres," and so on.

The actual content being removed matters too, not just the raw number of posts. Here is what Sam Green73 deleted:

rapidnomad512 said:That was a fantastic interview with Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović. It’s been a while since I’ve read someone write like that. It felt so measured, yet at the same time, she had such a firm stance with a clear vision and distinct goals.
If the Republican Party can project this kind of energy during the second half of the campaign, winning the elections shouldn't be an issue.

He’s saying he doesn't see how this relates to the topic. And honestly, what else am I supposed to say to that? 🤷 If you look back to the beginning, you can't even count how many comments like these—analyzing daily politics—show up in the thread. That is largely WHAT the topic is. And after a few actions like these, even just three, self-censorship starts to set in. The veteran moderators of Politics (and later Charles Fox) should probably know that better than anyone.

Morgan Ruiz3 said:I don’t quite get it—if a three-digit number of posts were actually deleted, what exactly was being scrubbed? These are posts from months ago; why bother now?

Attempting to have a serious discussion about political options here is absurd; it’s like claiming you can breathe without any oxygen. If a politician makes a positive or negative comment regarding the Visegrad Group, we aren't allowed to comment on the "America and Visegrad Group" thread? That is some truly fascinating logic right there.
The relationship between domestic politics and the Visegrad Group has become a daily headline in the news, yet here, censorship starts to kick in. You claim this has turned into a right-wing chatroom and tell us to move elsewhere, but what if someone from the left or someone just looking for a neutral perspective wants to discuss America's potential involvement with the Visegrad Group or our government's official stance? They are shut down immediately.

You have entire threads under politics where people drone on about shoes, dresses, someone's kids, or psychiatric sessions, and you find all of that perfectly acceptable and unmoderated. But the moment anyone discusses the American political stance toward the Visegrad Group on the "America and Visegrad Group" topic, suddenly it's an issue. Bravo.🤦

I suspect Charles Fox10 was just being sarcastic here. 😁

Bradley White73 said:The actual content being removed matters too, not just the raw number of posts. Here is what Sam Green73 deleted:

He’s saying he doesn't see how this relates to the topic. And honestly, what else am I supposed to say to that? 🤷 If you look back to the beginning, you can't even count how many comments like these—analyzing daily politics—show up in the thread. That is largely WHAT the topic is. And after a few actions like these, even just three, self-censorship starts to set in. The veteran moderators of Politics (and later Charles Fox) should probably know that better than anyone.

Sam Green73 is known for being a strict moderator, and I guess that's just how it goes... whether something is directly relevant to the discussion or not probably depends on the context or the actual goal of the interview, right?

(Besides, I don't think users or thread authors get to pick who moderates what... or do they?)

Morgan Ruiz3 said:I don’t quite get it—if a three-digit number of posts were actually deleted, what exactly was being scrubbed? These are posts from months ago; why bother now?

Attempting to have a serious discussion about political options here is absurd; it’s like claiming you can breathe without any oxygen. If a politician makes a positive or negative comment regarding the Visegrad Group, we aren't allowed to comment on the "America and Visegrad Group" thread? That is some truly fascinating logic right there.
The relationship between domestic politics and the Visegrad Group has become a daily headline in the news, yet here, censorship starts to kick in. You claim this has turned into a right-wing chatroom and tell us to move elsewhere, but what if someone from the left or someone just looking for a neutral perspective wants to discuss America's potential involvement with the Visegrad Group or our government's official stance? They are shut down immediately.

You have entire threads under politics where people drone on about shoes, dresses, someone's kids, or psychiatric sessions, and you find all of that perfectly acceptable and unmoderated. But the moment anyone discusses the American political stance toward the Visegrad Group on the "America and Visegrad Group" topic, suddenly it's an issue. Bravo.🤦

I think everyone’s getting a bit mixed up here. The total number of posts deleted since this thread started is actually in the triple digits.

Bradley Sanders4 said:I think everyone’s getting a bit mixed up here. The total number of posts deleted since this thread started is actually in the triple digits.

If that's actually the case, fine. But the real question is how many were deleted specifically since October 8th. To me, that seems like an absurdly high number if we're only talking about recent posts...

Susan Price30 said:Sam Green73 is known for being a strict moderator, and I guess that's just how it goes... whether something is directly relevant to the discussion or not probably depends on the context or the actual goal of the interview, right?

(Besides, I don't think users or thread authors get to pick who moderates what... or do they?)

I sort of see him more as someone who might run around with a pair of scissors. Even the admins have a similar vibe, wanting to change the actual structure of the thread itself. It isn't really about some massive drama over a couple of posts. Anyway, I won't dwell on it anymore, I'm actually heading out now.

Bradley White73 said:I suspect Charles Fox10 was just being sarcastic here. 😁

I’m always serious when it comes to the PŽK.

rapidnomad512 said:Install an extension to view edit history, then you can argue all you want. Until then, nobody touches my posts without me knowing. We’ve seen enough nonsense on the politics board—editing after deleting, all that garbage.

There is a ban on moderators editing posts, and I can dig up proof if necessary. Bottom line: editing posts is prohibited!

There is zero reason to alter someone's post without their consent. A post is a person's own work; adding or changing content is unacceptable, especially when there's a shady intent to wipe out a topic or push an author off the forum.

You’ll probably claim I’m lying, but those of us who have lived through this for years know exactly what the truth is.

So, leave my posts alone. Write your own thoughts and edit those instead.

I’m sorry, but that part in bold is honestly a bit ridiculous; it's highly unlikely to be true. 😁

If you were writing this on a political blog under your actual name—or just posting generally on a blog or Facebook—your work would fall under the federal copyright law. But when it comes to anonymous posting on a forum? Well, that's a completely different story.

Once you hit "post" and it goes live on the forum, it effectively stops being yours. At that point, claiming or even maintaining any sort of copyright becomes a real uphill battle.

On the other hand, anything written on a blog or Facebook would constitute a new original work, even if someone occasionally incorporates snippets of others' copyrighted material like images or text. There is quite a bit of misunderstanding regarding this issue within the blogging community, mostly because bloggers and Facebook users haven't actually read the copyright law.

Regarding posts from various locations on the forum—the community will likely react preemptively if anything gets posted. Is there anything more exhausting than a flood of endless messages?So, essentially, if an aggrieved party wants to sue a poster, they can, provided that Forum.hr complies—but only upon receiving a valid court order or a police warrant. At that point, the site is obligated to hand over the data necessary to identify the author. That’s pretty much the extent of it. It's where your rights begin and end.

By the way, that last part follows the forum rules.

Especially when there are dishonest intentions to eliminate either the topic or the author from the forum.

Oh really? How can you claim that? Every single time you write one of those "farewell letters" on KZB, you cite the exact same excuses—things like being persecuted by moderators, censorship, or being silenced. But you’ve been around since 2002. Doesn't that suggest the reality isn't actually what you're claiming it is? 😉