Why Tomislav Tomasevic's thread was deleted and the arrest of 4 local couples...

Just out of pure curiosity,

I’ve had two of my posts scrubbed—one from the thread regarding Tomislav Tomasevica and another from the one about four Americans being arrested and charged with human trafficking in Zambia

To be specific, I'm talking about this particular post

and yet, I'm still seeing notifications hitting my inbox for those messages.

The post was properly cited and included a link, so there wasn't any messy business there. I just want to get some clarity—it would be helpful to know what went wrong so I don't end up making the same mistake twice.

...

Kenneth Allen said:Just out of curiosity,

two of my posts got nuked—one in the Tomislav Tomasevica thread and another in the one about 4 Americans being arrested and charged with human trafficking in Zambia

Specifically, I’m talking about this exact post

and now I'm seeing notification emails for deleted messages.

The post was properly quoted and linked, too. Just trying to figure out what happened so I don't mess up again, I guess.

...

A third post stayed up in the right thread, so I guess you could call it spam. Plus, I didn't notice you being particularly active on any of those topics before. We aren't running a "Fox News" comment section here.

driftingtinker said:This is the third time you've posted this exact same thing in an appropriate thread—so, technically, we could call it spam. Besides, I haven't seen you active in any of these discussions before. We aren't going to turn this forum into a mouthpiece for Fox News.

I appreciate the bluntness, driftingtinker,

The thing is, the subject matter and the specific claims in that quote apply perfectly to all three threads—since the actors are identified by their full names and destinations, and the tone and clear sourcing remain consistent.

In all my time browsing this American forum, I don't think I've ever once—not even once—heard a moderator suggest that information from a specific source should be suppressed just because someone, specifically you, takes issue with that source.

Normally, one comments to debate, deny, confirm, or litigate the facts.

It should be an analytical process, not a politically biased one. And now you're suggesting that one has to be active twenty-four hours a day in a thread just to earn the right to post? In the Zambia thread, I have 6 posts, whereas in the Tomislav Tomasevica thread, I have 27 posts.

I write when I actually have something worth saying or sharing.

Furthermore, I’d like to request that an addendum be added to the subforum rules, stating that Fox News cannot be used as a source on this forum or within this clearly defined subforum. Since that is exactly what you just stated in your response, I intend to hold you to that rule moving forward.

...

Honestly, there hasn't really been a reason to step in until now, mostly because Fox News is rarely even brought up outside of its own thread—which, let's be real, has been pretty much dead for years. The ban and the deletion were basically just a response to the flooding and spam. If you don't believe me, just look at the fact that the third copy wasn't even wiped.

Just three identical copies of the exact same message posted across different threads:
2:10 PM
2:15 PM
2:17 PM

I mean, you usually only see stuff like this coming from spam bots.

driftingtinker said:Up until now, there hasn't really been a need to intervene, seeing as Fox News is rarely mentioned outside its own specific thread—which, let's be honest, has been a ghost town for years. The ban and the deletion were primarily due to flooding and spam; if you want proof for that theory, just look at how the third instance wasn't even deleted.

So, in other words, is this "Fox News rule" just an arbitrary decree issued by you as a moderator, rather than an actual rule of the forum?

Look, Radman is technically the third post here, but the first one was actually back in the Tomislav Tomasevic thread, which addresses those same three players with identical content.

But then again, I suppose you’d need me to quote the full body of the message to see that while all three aren't verbatim identical, two of them are—with a clear note explaining why I linked them together. I'm asking this without a shred of irony: would it have been considered a lesser offense if I had simply written a line or two commenting on someone within a thread and then added a link, or if I had already posted something similar elsewhere on the forum?

The core issue remains: why does the content of the quote—both the image and the tone—seem to bother you so much less in Radman's thread than it did in the original Tomislav Tomasevic thread? I'll leave that particular puzzle entirely to you.

I am merely following the trail and the shifting logic—this moving target you seem to be relying on.

Thanks again for the response.

Kenneth Allen said:The big question here—and I’m leaving this one entirely up to you, I guess—is why the whole vibe and the actual imagery in the quotes doesn't bother you nearly as much in Radman's thread as it did back in Tomislav Tomasevic's original thread.

Yeah, fair point. It really shouldn't be there either way. Deleted it, thanks for pointing that out.

Do you honestly believe this is a stellar example of what you're doing right now—making some impulsive call to hit the delete button? Especially after those several documented inconsistencies I already laid out for you.

Whether your decision was actually sound or just driven by something else... well, I'll leave it to the rest of the community to judge.

So, things aren't going right again?
Guess it’s time to head over to:
Velimir Bujanec - Fox News

driftingtinker,

Look, you represent the moderation team—and I’m not disputing that authority here. In fact, since I first registered, I’ve racked up three warnings, including this latest one from you today. But let’s be honest about what they actually are: purely technicalities, trivial matters that don't carry any real weight.

I have absolutely no desire—neither in my tone nor my intent—to stir up conflict on this board. You know that better than anyone, considering we’ve been reading each other’s posts for ages.

I’ll leave it to you and the rest of the group to weigh the facts: you took a very specific stance, only to completely backtrack on it moments later. It should be perfectly obvious to you that my post was directed squarely at Tomasevica’s thread; it was cited correctly, linked properly, and didn't violate a single rule of conduct.

Again, you’re the only one who can answer why the actual content of that post bothers you so much—so much, in fact, that you’ve offered a series of diversions just to steer the conversation away from the central issue.

I didn't write the piece in question—I even explicitly stated that—and if that’s somehow being treated as a falsehood, then I suppose I’ll just have to wait for them to sue me for it.

Thanks,

I’ll just add my two cents here instead of starting an entirely new thread. I’m trying to wrap my head around why I’ve been locked out of the entire Politics section. I haven't received a single notification—no messages, no alerts about points being deducted, not even a formal warning. Nothing. I’d appreciate some sort of coherent explanation, if one exists. The reason I'm posting this specific grievance here is because this is where I spend most of my time, usually lurking in the eighth sub-forum. I don't engage in any flame wars or unnecessary arguments, so I'm left wondering what the issue is. Just looking for some clarity.

It looks like I’m not the only one noticing this...
I can't help but wonder why a bunch of absolute lunatics are flooding a political thread about "four Americans arrested..."

It's wild how posts that aren't even offensive or off-topic seem to vanish at lightning speed. 🙄

He hit the nail right on the head for me.