Politics PDF: Thread Locked "Whistleblower vs. PM and the fallout

Charles Fox10 said:Hold on a second. That guy was intoxicated, shouting, whistling, and being generally abusive. Why are we acting surprised that the police stepped in?

A 61-year-old man from Knoxville, Luke Kozin, was intoxicated this Monday in Knoxville, where he whistled at Zoran Milanović and hurled insults his way.

Of course they reacted, and of course he was detained. What else were they supposed to do? Take him out for coffee or send him to a spa until he sobers up?

According to some people, the police should have just looked the other way since he was drunk at a gathering—that would be "correct" behavior. But when an intoxicated individual is detained for disturbing the peace, suddenly it’s "wrongful conduct" ordered by those "higher up."

What fascinating theories we come up with.

Drunk individuals need to be removed from public spaces for everyone's safety.

Is it illegal to walk down the street or just stand there—to attend a public protest and whistle (or find any other legitimate way to dissent)—just because someone happens to be drunk? (Whether they are walking, standing in a crowd, whistling, or just fidgeting...)

Or is it only against the law to be intoxicated if you're operating a vehicle, since that clearly endangers your life and everyone around you?

Unfortunately, this topic hit its peak right as I was typing this reply, so I hope it's okay to ask here.

Link: Pay attention to the last few posts, for instance. Or the logic behind them... though it's easy to follow someone's logic, the real issue is that because of this kind of reasoning, someone might decide to lock the thread.

I don't know, but maybe Chuck should have been let go a long time ago. People were calling for his resignation on MK due to massive moderation failures, let alone errors in a much more serious document like Politics.

So, this guy goes ahead and shuts down a thread about something that’s basically being blasted across every major news outlet in the country right now—it's all anyone can talk about... everywhere you look, there's an analysis or a headline regarding it.

🙄And for what reason, really? As if we actually need to waste our breath dealing with some drunk...

>

Gerald Rivera17 said:So, this guy goes ahead and shuts down a thread about something that’s basically being blasted across every major news outlet in the country right now—it's all anyone can talk about... everywhere you look, there's an analysis or a headline regarding it.

🙄And for what reason, really? As if we actually need to waste our breath dealing with some drunk...

>

But is he actually a drunkard?

What kind of argument is even that?

Especially considering the breathalyzer test was taken last night, rather than right there at the scene... any decent lawyer would tear that evidence apart without breaking a sweat. So, what is it—do Chuck and Roko know something the rest of us don't? Or are they just trolling? Deliberately, I suspect...

First, this was moved over to the Politics section before being locked down...

The usual routine, I suppose...

So, we’ll just have to pick up the conversation right here then...

This is 61-year-old Luke Kozin, the man who was taken into custody after insulting Milanović at a public rally in Knoxville...

Even though there were criticisms coming out of Milanović's office regarding the arrest, the local police chief isn't backing down, stating simply that the man broke the law and they are merely enforcing it. Ivica Kostanić told reporters that the police won't be dropping the misdemeanor charges against an individual who disrupted public order and peace by shouting insults at government officials...

Kostanić went on to mention that everything followed standard procedure and that this is how they will continue to handle things moving forward...

The 61-year-old is now facing either a fine or up to 30 days in jail...

Kozin told Index: I wasn't whistling, I was hooting!

"I don't know how to whistle, but I certainly let out a hoot," the 61-year-old Kozin told Index...

"I was yelling at the Prime Minister that he should be ashamed for vacationing on Maui for $17, vacationing on the taxpayer's dime while being protected by a crowd of people! I shouted at him that he should be ashamed for spending ten million American dollars a day while workers are digging through dumpsters just to survive," Kozin added...

Speaking with Index, Kozin also expressed his belief that the order for his arrest came from Secretary Ostojić under instructions from Prime Minister Milanović, especially since the police didn't actually take him in for questioning until 9:00 PM, despite the "incident" in Knoxville happening around 11:00 AM...

"They told me they were just going to take my statement, but then they drove me straight to the station. They gave me a breathalyzer test, even though I protested. They claimed they saw me drinking during the day. I asked why they were testing me when it happened at 11:00, because I hadn't been drinking then. I was waiting for Generals Gotovina and Markač," Kozin explained...

At the station, he claims they measured his blood alcohol level at 1.33, and he was held at the precinct until the following morning. After being questioned again, he was brought before an investigative judge who, according to him, told him he was "free for now, but not free from the penalty." He repeated what he told the judge that morning to Index: "I would do it all over again tomorrow!"...

He also mentioned that due to his low income, he doesn't plan on paying the fine...

James Patel20 said:First, this was moved over to the Politics section before being locked down...

The usual routine, I suppose...

So, we’ll just have to pick up the conversation right here then...

This is 61-year-old Luke Kozin, the man who was taken into custody after insulting Milanović at a public rally in Knoxville...

Even though there were criticisms coming out of Milanović's office regarding the arrest, the local police chief isn't backing down, stating simply that the man broke the law and they are merely enforcing it. Ivica Kostanić told reporters that the police won't be dropping the misdemeanor charges against an individual who disrupted public order and peace by shouting insults at government officials...

Kostanić went on to mention that everything followed standard procedure and that this is how they will continue to handle things moving forward...

The 61-year-old is now facing either a fine or up to 30 days in jail...

Kozin told Index: I wasn't whistling, I was hooting!

"I don't know how to whistle, but I certainly let out a hoot," the 61-year-old Kozin told Index...

"I was yelling at the Prime Minister that he should be ashamed for vacationing on Maui for $17, vacationing on the taxpayer's dime while being protected by a crowd of people! I shouted at him that he should be ashamed for spending ten million American dollars a day while workers are digging through dumpsters just to survive," Kozin added...

Speaking with Index, Kozin also expressed his belief that the order for his arrest came from Secretary Ostojić under instructions from Prime Minister Milanović, especially since the police didn't actually take him in for questioning until 9:00 PM, despite the "incident" in Knoxville happening around 11:00 AM...

"They told me they were just going to take my statement, but then they drove me straight to the station. They gave me a breathalyzer test, even though I protested. They claimed they saw me drinking during the day. I asked why they were testing me when it happened at 11:00, because I hadn't been drinking then. I was waiting for Generals Gotovina and Markač," Kozin explained...

At the station, he claims they measured his blood alcohol level at 1.33, and he was held at the precinct until the following morning. After being questioned again, he was brought before an investigative judge who, according to him, told him he was "free for now, but not free from the penalty." He repeated what he told the judge that morning to Index: "I would do it all over again tomorrow!"...

He also mentioned that due to his low income, he doesn't plan on paying the fine...

Exactly—moved and then locked tight. Makes you wonder what they'll pull next, doesn't it?

Now Luke has chimed in, so next it’ll be the police, then the courts, then the Secretary... and so on...

I mean, 🙄 locking a thread about the very event everyone is actually discussing...🙂 is certainly a choice...

First, they moved it to the Politics section and then locked it.

Classic.

So now we have to continue the discussion here.

It’s been moved a few times.🙂 It went from Close Politics to the main subforum, back to Close Politics, then back to the main one—or something like that (I'm honestly not sure if it was three times or even more over the last two days since people started talking about it).

And Charles Fox10 actually posted something this morning and then deleted it (I happened to be on the thread right at that moment, which is why it felt so strange)... there was a comment-warning on the thread that looked like they were going to lock it even earlier this morning.

(At least that's how it appeared to me—reading it as some kind of 'warning,' a comment or whatever that had nothing to do with the topic or the users, but rather felt like a news report about the whole situation—and the admins can see everything, obviously, what was deleted, what was written, etc.).

This has truly crossed the line. 🤷 He was told one last time not to lock threads for no reason, but apparently, forum members need to come to the site every single day to harass the admins over his mistakes, or perhaps because it looks like intentional mockery.

(Or maybe just making fools out of the admins through someone's sheer stubbornness, regardless of the reason).

It’s pretty wild to see how they’re suddenly labeling this veteran with PTSD—a father of five who fought honorably for this country and was just hauled off to jail for being a whistleblower—as nothing more than a drunk.

Whenever there's a story about a veteran threatening someone with a bomb, or a veteran committing a crime, or some fake war profiteer lining their pockets, every single headline in the news screams "VETERAN" in bold letters.

But now that we have a veteran who is actually a victim of the very system he helped build alongside his brothers-in-arms—only to have hyenas circle him once the job was done—suddenly everyone goes quiet because it doesn't serve their narrative to talk about some supposed drinking problem.

Keep your head up, John! I truly believe there is a higher court than this one, and beyond this world, I believe in justice!

slybison8 said:I am Chuck, and I have also sent a message, though I suspect he is away from the Forum for now. Until either he or the edge returns, I suppose I will reopen this thread at my own discretion, as it seems to me that the media appearance of the former veteran—who was arrested, detained, and perhaps even sentenced, if I understood correctly—might warrant some fresh commentary and analysis.

I should emphasize that this decision is merely temporary, and the final call will be made by our colleague Chuck and/or the edge.

PL

EDIT: This thread is temporarily open on Close Politics.

I just caught this thread now, so let me ask you something here: what exactly is your role in making these calls?

Why is it that Chuck and the edge (as you pointed out) have the sole authority to decide whether a thread stays locked or gets moved over to Close Politics?

And one more thing—since I've noticed you using the "whatever the colleagues decide" argument a few times now—what part do you play in deciding who receives their grades on the Politics PDF? What is the actual procedure for determining those grades? Does it require a consensus among all the moderators (like it does on other sub-forums), or not?

Let’s not overcomplicate things by hunting for hidden agendas or power structures on the Politics PDF; we’re all essentially the same there.

Regarding the subject—after I issued at least two warnings to leave Gotovina alone and stop trolling with references to Harmon, Bandić, Kim Il-sung, or Thompson—it became moot. Once the news broke, as it did for everyone else, that the whistleblower had a blood alcohol content of 1.33%, the whole debate lost its point. The Police are required to act whenever someone is intoxicated in a public space, regardless of who they are.

That said, my colleague PL gathered a few more details later, suggesting it might not be quite that simple, which prompted him to start the thread. Though, honestly, it's hardly a major headline if the place was shut down by two in the morning.

Charles Fox10 said:Let’s not overcomplicate things by hunting for hidden agendas or power structures on the Politics PDF; we’re all essentially the same there.

Regarding the subject—after I issued at least two warnings to leave Gotovina alone and stop trolling with references to Harmon, Bandić, Kim Il-sung, or Thompson—it became moot. Once the news broke, as it did for everyone else, that the whistleblower had a blood alcohol content of 1.33%, the whole debate lost its point. The Police are required to act whenever someone is intoxicated in a public space, regardless of who they are.

That said, my colleague PL gathered a few more details later, suggesting it might not be quite that simple, which prompted him to start the thread. Though, honestly, it's hardly a major headline if the place was shut down by two in the morning.

The real issue here is that you shut the thread down almost instantly, even though it's one of the hottest topics happening right now!

The problem lies (among other things) in how you guys handle locking threads!

It isn't normal how lightning-fast you move to lock the most current discussions!

You moved the Storm thread over to the Close Politics subforum and then promptly locked it!

Is it really standard procedure to have no place to discuss the Storm celebrations for days on end?

You locked the thread about Gotovina and Markač, so now there’s nowhere left to talk about Generals Gotovina and Markač!

What you're doing just isn't right.

coppermarlin13 said:I just caught this thread now, so let me ask you something here: what exactly is your role in making these calls?

Why is it that Chuck and the edge (as you pointed out) have the sole authority to decide whether a thread stays locked or gets moved over to Close Politics?

And one more thing—since I've noticed you using the "whatever the colleagues decide" argument a few times now—what part do you play in deciding who receives their grades on the Politics PDF? What is the actual procedure for determining those grades? Does it require a consensus among all the moderators (like it does on other sub-forums), or not?

I believe I have already addressed similar questions regarding the decision to lock the Gotovina thread. Our moderators operate independently; we try not to interfere in each other's work, and as a general rule, we never overturn a colleague's decision. If a dispute arises, we discuss it privately, and if a change is necessary, it is typically made by the original moderator rather than someone else.

This is essentially what we call collegiality, which I suppose is quite similar to how professional teams function within any American corporation or business organization.

We had an interesting situation today. Charles Fox10 decided to close a thread because the quality of the discussion had declined significantly, yet immediately after, all the major news outlets began reporting on the individual who was detained, publishing several interviews that revealed previously unknown information. Consequently, the topic of whistleblowing has once again become a focal point in the American media landscape, albeit from a fresh perspective. Since Charles Fox10 was no longer active on the Forum, nor was our mutual friend the edge, I decided to take the risk and reopen the thread myself.

Charles Fox10 eventually accepted my decision, and as you can see, there is complete harmony among the Politics moderators.

It would be wonderful if something similar could happen within the threads themselves—if users worked to improve the quality of discussions and focused more on arguments rather than disagreements. If that happened, no one would face the dilemma of whether to lock a thread, reopen it, or move it to the Politics section. Most of our decisions are simply reactions to how you, the users, behave within the threads.

Charles Fox10 said:Let’s not overcomplicate things by hunting for hidden agendas or power structures on the Politics PDF; we’re all essentially the same there.

Regarding the subject—after I issued at least two warnings to leave Gotovina alone and stop trolling with references to Harmon, Bandić, Kim Il-sung, or Thompson—it became moot. Once the news broke, as it did for everyone else, that the whistleblower had a blood alcohol content of 1.33%, the whole debate lost its point. The Police are required to act whenever someone is intoxicated in a public space, regardless of who they are.

That said, my colleague PL gathered a few more details later, suggesting it might not be quite that simple, which prompted him to start the thread. Though, honestly, it's hardly a major headline if the place was shut down by two in the morning.

The whistleblower, as you call him, had that 1.33 reading when he was brought into the station in the evening, not at the actual moment the alleged crime took place.
And when the police were acting according to, as you put it, official duty, he wasn't exactly disrupting the peace or anything...

Charles Fox10 said:Let’s not overcomplicate things by hunting for hidden agendas or power structures on the Politics PDF; we’re all essentially the same there.

Regarding the subject—after I issued at least two warnings to leave Gotovina alone and stop trolling with references to Harmon, Bandić, Kim Il-sung, or Thompson—it became moot. Once the news broke, as it did for everyone else, that the whistleblower had a blood alcohol content of 1.33%, the whole debate lost its point. The Police are required to act whenever someone is intoxicated in a public space, regardless of who they are.

That said, my colleague PL gathered a few more details later, suggesting it might not be quite that simple, which prompted him to start the thread. Though, honestly, it's hardly a major headline if the place was shut down by two in the morning.

I find it hard to believe that a single moderator could offer such a flimsy justification for their actions.

So, to you, the subject suddenly lost all relevance simply because the whistleblower (singular) was under the influence of alcohol (?), and the police are obligated to take action against intoxicated people in public areas?

You really overstepped with that thread closure...

slybison8 said:I believe I have already addressed similar questions regarding the decision to lock the Gotovina thread. Our moderators operate independently; we try not to interfere in each other's work, and as a general rule, we never overturn a colleague's decision. If a dispute arises, we discuss it privately, and if a change is necessary, it is typically made by the original moderator rather than someone else.

This is essentially what we call collegiality, which I suppose is quite similar to how professional teams function within any American corporation or business organization.

We had an interesting situation today. Charles Fox10 decided to close a thread because the quality of the discussion had declined significantly, yet immediately after, all the major news outlets began reporting on the individual who was detained, publishing several interviews that revealed previously unknown information. Consequently, the topic of whistleblowing has once again become a focal point in the American media landscape, albeit from a fresh perspective. Since Charles Fox10 was no longer active on the Forum, nor was our mutual friend the edge, I decided to take the risk and reopen the thread myself.

Charles Fox10 eventually accepted my decision, and as you can see, there is complete harmony among the Politics moderators.

It would be wonderful if something similar could happen within the threads themselves—if users worked to improve the quality of discussions and focused more on arguments rather than disagreements. If that happened, no one would face the dilemma of whether to lock a thread, reopen it, or move it to the Politics section. Most of our decisions are simply reactions to how you, the users, behave within the threads.

Remember when you reached out to me after I closed that thread about Gotovina and Markač? You were asking for my take. ovo:

slybison8 The user said:...Deciding whether to reopen this thread isn't really my call anymore. That responsibility has shifted over to the other moderators who are focusing more heavily on American domestic politics than I am these days. Whatever they decide to do, you can count on my full support....

I have to point out that you actually told me the exact same thing in our private messages, adding the note that you... ti That guy is the one who started this whole thread. Locked down..

It seems like you think I just nod along with whatever the rest of the group decides to do.

It’s actually pretty interesting to watch how the moderation is being handled around here.

slybison8 said:I believe I have already addressed similar questions regarding the decision to lock the Gotovina thread. Our moderators operate independently; we try not to interfere in each other's work, and as a general rule, we never overturn a colleague's decision. If a dispute arises, we discuss it privately, and if a change is necessary, it is typically made by the original moderator rather than someone else.

This is essentially what we call collegiality, which I suppose is quite similar to how professional teams function within any American corporation or business organization.

We had an interesting situation today. Charles Fox10 decided to close a thread because the quality of the discussion had declined significantly, yet immediately after, all the major news outlets began reporting on the individual who was detained, publishing several interviews that revealed previously unknown information. Consequently, the topic of whistleblowing has once again become a focal point in the American media landscape, albeit from a fresh perspective. Since Charles Fox10 was no longer active on the Forum, nor was our mutual friend the edge, I decided to take the risk and reopen the thread myself.

Charles Fox10 eventually accepted my decision, and as you can see, there is complete harmony among the Politics moderators.

It would be wonderful if something similar could happen within the threads themselves—if users worked to improve the quality of discussions and focused more on arguments rather than disagreements. If that happened, no one would face the dilemma of whether to lock a thread, reopen it, or move it to the Politics section. Most of our decisions are simply reactions to how you, the users, behave within the threads.

It’s honestly hard to believe anyone is claiming this thread was "dying out." I mean, look at the numbers—we managed to churn out seven full pages of discussion today alone before the mods finally stepped in and locked it down. Calling that a "fading topic" feels like a total stretch. What exactly defines a conversation dying when it's moving this fast? Using that as a justification for locking the thread just doesn't add up to me.

Even if there were some hesitation or doubt in the air, what exactly are we supposed to draw from that? What kind of conclusions should we actually be pulling?

It honestly feels like you guys are just itching to hit that Lock button, desperately scrambling to cook up any excuse possible just to justify doing it.

It’s really not an exaggeration to say that the quality of discussion here has plummeted lately. Honestly, some of your posts actually stand out because they're so much more substantial than the rest. So, what you're implying is that you played a part in dragging the conversation down yourself? Is that what you're getting at?

The whole debate really hit rock bottom the moment everyone just took it as an absolute fact that the veteran was an alcoholic. Once that assumption was made, it felt like the entire conversation just died right there. It’s hard to have a productive discussion when people stop looking at the actual issues and instead decide they've already figured out someone's personal flaws.

Since when did the edge become some kind of super-mod for Politics? I distinctly remember him saying he wasn't a Politics super-mod, just one for the football section.
scotsman is the actual super-mod for Politics.
Do you have some inside scoop or new info on this?

slybison8 said:I believe I have already addressed similar questions regarding the decision to lock the Gotovina thread. Our moderators operate independently; we try not to interfere in each other's work, and as a general rule, we never overturn a colleague's decision. If a dispute arises, we discuss it privately, and if a change is necessary, it is typically made by the original moderator rather than someone else.

This is essentially what we call collegiality, which I suppose is quite similar to how professional teams function within any American corporation or business organization.

We had an interesting situation today. Charles Fox10 decided to close a thread because the quality of the discussion had declined significantly, yet immediately after, all the major news outlets began reporting on the individual who was detained, publishing several interviews that revealed previously unknown information. Consequently, the topic of whistleblowing has once again become a focal point in the American media landscape, albeit from a fresh perspective. Since Charles Fox10 was no longer active on the Forum, nor was our mutual friend the edge, I decided to take the risk and reopen the thread myself.

Charles Fox10 eventually accepted my decision, and as you can see, there is complete harmony among the Politics moderators.

It would be wonderful if something similar could happen within the threads themselves—if users worked to improve the quality of discussions and focused more on arguments rather than disagreements. If that happened, no one would face the dilemma of whether to lock a thread, reopen it, or move it to the Politics section. Most of our decisions are simply reactions to how you, the users, behave within the threads.

It always seems like "infighting" is the excuse used whenever a thread gets locked. But let’s be honest: people are often just itching to shut down an active, trending topic so they don't have to deal with it, or simply because it doesn't align with the forum's left-leaning political leanings.

Also, could you walk me through the official procedure for assigning partial credits/ranks in the Politics sub-forum?

Does it require a unanimous vote from all the moderators for a user to get credit in Politics?

Is it a matter of collegiality there too? Like, does one person propose it and then everyone else just signs off?

Since when does having a blood alcohol content of 1.33% make you a drunk during the Storm celebrations?

Personally, I’m betting a huge number of people participating had somewhere between 1.0 and 1.5 percent. Honestly, that’s hardly anything considering how massive these celebrations get.

Besides, since when did any law dictate that people should be hauled in just because they exceeded a certain limit while out in public?

coppermarlin13 said:Remember when you reached out to me after I closed that thread about Gotovina and Markač? You were asking for my take. ovo:

I have to point out that you actually told me the exact same thing in our private messages, adding the note that you... ti That guy is the one who started this whole thread. Locked down..

It seems like you think I just nod along with whatever the rest of the group decides to do.

It’s actually pretty interesting to watch how the moderation is being handled around here.

It’s honestly hard to believe anyone is claiming this thread was "dying out." I mean, look at the numbers—we managed to churn out seven full pages of discussion today alone before the mods finally stepped in and locked it down. Calling that a "fading topic" feels like a total stretch. What exactly defines a conversation dying when it's moving this fast? Using that as a justification for locking the thread just doesn't add up to me.

Even if there were some hesitation or doubt in the air, what exactly are we supposed to draw from that? What kind of conclusions should we actually be pulling?

It honestly feels like you guys are just itching to hit that Lock button, desperately scrambling to cook up any excuse possible just to justify doing it.

It’s really not an exaggeration to say that the quality of discussion here has plummeted lately. Honestly, some of your posts actually stand out because they're so much more substantial than the rest. So, what you're implying is that you played a part in dragging the conversation down yourself? Is that what you're getting at?

The whole debate really hit rock bottom the moment everyone just took it as an absolute fact that the veteran was an alcoholic. Once that assumption was made, it felt like the entire conversation just died right there. It’s hard to have a productive discussion when people stop looking at the actual issues and instead decide they've already figured out someone's personal flaws.

Since when did the edge become some kind of super-mod for Politics? I distinctly remember him saying he wasn't a Politics super-mod, just one for the football section.
scotsman is the actual super-mod for Politics.
Do you have some inside scoop or new info on this?

It always seems like "infighting" is the excuse used whenever a thread gets locked. But let’s be honest: people are often just itching to shut down an active, trending topic so they don't have to deal with it, or simply because it doesn't align with the forum's left-leaning political leanings.

Also, could you walk me through the official procedure for assigning partial credits/ranks in the Politics sub-forum?

Does it require a unanimous vote from all the moderators for a user to get credit in Politics?

Is it a matter of collegiality there too? Like, does one person propose it and then everyone else just signs off?

I don't, I guess. 🙂

In the meantime, I actually found out that the edge is a supermod on some other forums besides Politics. I hadn't realized that detail before. All this time, I had been under the impression that the edge was my boss. 😁

Things happen, I suppose. 😁

Charles Fox10 said:Let’s not overcomplicate things by hunting for hidden agendas or power structures on the Politics PDF; we’re all essentially the same there.

Regarding the subject—after I issued at least two warnings to leave Gotovina alone and stop trolling with references to Harmon, Bandić, Kim Il-sung, or Thompson—it became moot. Once the news broke, as it did for everyone else, that the whistleblower had a blood alcohol content of 1.33%, the whole debate lost its point. The Police are required to act whenever someone is intoxicated in a public space, regardless of who they are.

That said, my colleague PL gathered a few more details later, suggesting it might not be quite that simple, which prompted him to start the thread. Though, honestly, it's hardly a major headline if the place was shut down by two in the morning.

Even if the thread stayed locked or got tossed into some completely irrelevant corner, I wouldn't have had an issue with it. Threads like these usually just serve as a playground for the usual aggressive types to get their daily fix of hysteria, stigmatization, slander, waving symbols around, and cheap grandstanding.

Actually, it might not be a bad idea to start one single dedicated thread for political updates from the Tracers sections—you know, stuff like the local election chatter and party politics—just to take the pressure off the rest of the forum.🤷😁
The crew clearly can't breathe if everyone is constantly picking fights; honestly, there’s no difference between this group and any other unruly mob out on the street.
If you could minimize these kinds of outbursts to the absolute bare minimum, maybe we’d finally see a miracle where this forum actually becomes smarter and more functional over time.

slybison8 said:I don't, I guess. 🙂

In the meantime, I actually found out that the edge is a supermod on some other forums besides Politics. I hadn't realized that detail before. All this time, I had been under the impression that the edge was my boss. 😁

Things happen, I suppose. 😁

😂
It is inexpensive, yet somewhat charming.
You happened to overlook the fact that the "incident" took place in the morning, whereas the breathalyzer test wasn't administered until late at night:😁

Charles Fox10 said:Let’s not overcomplicate things by hunting for hidden agendas or power structures on the Politics PDF; we’re all essentially the same there.

Regarding the subject—after I issued at least two warnings to leave Gotovina alone and stop trolling with references to Harmon, Bandić, Kim Il-sung, or Thompson—it became moot. Once the news broke, as it did for everyone else, that the whistleblower had a blood alcohol content of 1.33%, the whole debate lost its point. The Police are required to act whenever someone is intoxicated in a public space, regardless of who they are.

That said, my colleague PL gathered a few more details later, suggesting it might not be quite that simple, which prompted him to start the thread. Though, honestly, it's hardly a major headline if the place was shut down by two in the morning.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't really seem like much of an issue to me. Besides, everything involved is quite easy to see and verify...

Maybe the issue is that you simply don't. I see. What exactly is the issue here: your absolute lack of any right to censor, or just your sheer arrogance in trying to control the most trending topic on the busiest subforum?

The discussion proceeded without any major issues or excessive moderator intervention. There were hardly any bans issued over the last ten pages, which makes me wonder—given how abruptly everything was shut down—if the debate itself wasn't actually controversial, but rather something else entirely.

One has to question your ability to moderate, especially regarding something like the Politics PDF, given this isn't the first occurrence. Every time you've done this—locking up a heated topic for no reason—it ends up being reopened shortly after, if not the very same day. This suggests that your decisions in all these instances have been incorrect; at the very least, in this case, it feels like an exercise in pure ego rather than acting in the interest of the Forum or its users.

Do you really think the reason you gave for the shutdown still holds water?

And this was how it looked.

So much noise over a drunk arrest. Now even the President has to deal with some offended alcoholics. 1.33 BAC...
The link.

My exhausted response to that— You're right, there's really no point in even bringing it up, Lock!

Unseen!😁