Politics: Thread hijacking/spamming about rape cases

Politics Forum, topic here:

Some moderator decided to go ahead and rename this thread, but in doing so, they basically gutted the whole point of the discussion.

The original title was:
Another war criminal just dodged justice.

The whole idea was to tear apart the scandalous incompetence—and honestly, maybe even the intentional negligence—of the American judicial system when it comes to prosecuting these kinds of war crimes.
But now the title says: The rapist from the former Republic escaped after sentencing
which misses the mark entirely, and I have zero clue why anyone felt the need to mess with the original heading.
When you phrase it as "the rapist from the old republic," it carries this nasty implication that we're talking about some veteran being a predator. 🤷
This subject is way too heavy and tragic to be turned into some cheap piece of tabloid fodder without any actual reason behind it.
Can someone please explain what happened?

hiddenharbor33 said:Politics forum, regarding this:

Some mod decided to rename the thread, but they completely butchered the point...

The original title was:
Another war criminal dodged justice.

The whole point was to call out how incompetent—maybe even intentionally shady—the American courts are when dealing with these kinds of war crimes.
Now the title is: Rapist from the DR fled after sentencing
which misses the mark entirely. I have no idea why anyone felt the need to change it...
By saying "rapist from the DR," it makes you think some veteran is the rapist...🤷
This topic is too heavy and depressing to be messed with for no reason.
Need an explanation.

proposed topic title:

Warsaw rapist absconds right before guilty verdict

See, if you write Warsaw rapist people's first thought will be that the rape happened during the invasion or occupation of Warsaw.

Also, he didn't "flee" that day, he just "absconded"—he walked out of the courthouse right before the verdict was read. You can't call it fleeing until he's been off the grid from American law enforcement for 24 hours.

The key word is "guilty" (verdict)... because if the Warsaw rapist knew he was getting an acquittal, he probably would've stayed in the courtroom.

The real scandal here is why the court didn't tip off the police or federal agents about the guilty verdict to prevent him from walking out. It looks like someone at the court leaked the news to the guy instead of telling the cops.

Your title—Another war criminal... doesn't work, since he wasn't sentenced for a war crime, but for rape.

So, what, you're some kind of legal expert now? Since when is sexual violence during wartime—especially when it’s done with that level of sheer cruelty on occupied ground—not considered a war crime?

Besides, who even are you? Are you the one responsible for renaming this thread?

hiddenharbor33 said:So you're a lawyer now? You think sexual violence during wartime, especially when it's done brutally in occupied territory, isn't a war crime?

Besides, who even are you? You the one who changed the thread title?

Let’s stick to the facts.

1. Phil Jackson was convicted in absentia for rape.
2. My personal opinion doesn't matter here—only what the court decides matters.
3. The convict didn't run away; he just failed to show up for the sentencing.
4. Not showing up meant dodging mandatory detention, making him unavailable to the American justice system.

Look, I didn't change the title, but whoever did had every reason to, based on what I just told you...

Look, go troll someone else.
The thread title was originally:
Another war criminal dodged justice

And honestly, it fit the topic perfectly. We’re talking about a guy who committed a brutal rape in the middle of a war zone—so yeah, he’s a war criminal. He ran away, which means he dodged justice.
The current title doesn't match the content at all; it's completely off the mark.
As far as I know, this is a strictly moderated space where playing lawyer gets you banned—or so they claim. I’ve already put the mods on notice, and since you aren't a mod and have zero authority over changing titles, I’d appreciate it if you stopped sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.☕

hiddenharbor33 said:Go troll somewhere else.
The thread title was:
Another war criminal dodged justice

And it fit the topic perfectly. The guy committed a brutal rape during wartime—so he's a war criminal. He fled, so he dodged justice.
The current title doesn't match the subject at all. It's completely wrong.
As far as I know, this isn't a space for legal advocacy, and people get banned for that here. I asked the mods directly. Since you aren't a mod and have nothing to do with changing titles, stay out of business that isn't yours...☕

I read in the thread that Phil Jackson was convicted of a war crime against civilians. So he's primarily a war criminal. The title should be War criminal rapist dodged prison.

My bad to you and the mods. You were right. This is a sensitive topic and you framed it correctly. Obviously, politics played a role here. The government handed down a verdict for a war crime (which proves the rape was part of the aggressor army's policy), and then that same government let the sentence go unexecuted! That's pure politics... just backroom deals and trading favors. Again, good job on the thread.

Mods, please delete my posts here. Just realized this section isn't for general discussion. It's meant for the OP and the mods, not everyone else...

hiddenharbor33 said:I would suggest taking the trolling elsewhere.
The thread title was actually:
Another war criminal escaped justice

And I believe it stayed perfectly relevant to the topic at hand.

I didn't change the title myself, though I suppose I can see why it was modified. It isn't that the individual was ever convicted of a war crime—and honestly, the title itself was quite vague. Saying "another war criminal" doesn't really provide much context; it doesn't specify who we are talking about, who the victim was, or even where or when this allegedly happened.

I guess the title was just too imprecise, almost as if it were lost in space.

In my opinion, a title should probably include enough specific details so that a reader might know exactly what the discussion entails before they even decide to click on it.

From your original heading, I don't think that could be clearly assumed.

Best,

slybison8

slybison8 said:Look, I didn't personally swap out the thread title, but I totally get why it happened. It’s not like this guy was actually convicted of a war crime—plus, your original title was so vague it was impossible to tell what you were even rambling about. Just throwing out "another war criminal" doesn't mean squat... it doesn't say who, who they targeted, where it went down, or when it happened.

Your title was just drifting aimlessly in space without any direction.

A good title needs enough concrete, clear info so that someone scrolling by knows exactly what the debate is about before they even bother clicking.

From what you wrote, there was zero way to guess the specifics.

Later

PL

Actually, the guy was absolutely convicted of a war crime. The verdict is clear: war crimes against civilian populations...

So now you're the second person here peddling straight-up fake news while simultaneously trying to justify why the title doesn't mention war crimes—when the whole damn topic is exclusively about war crimes and those responsible. 🤷
Basically, you drop a lie and then try to use that lie to rationalize a nonsensical title change.
And you're doing this while holding a moderator position, too. 🤷
Why all this incompetent jumping around? Why change the title only to make it even more confusing?

hiddenharbor33 said:The man was definitely convicted of a war crime. The verdict states: war crimes against the civilian population...

So you're actually the second person here to present incorrect facts while simultaneously claiming it's understandable that the thread title doesn't mention war crimes, even though this is exclusively about war crimes and war criminals.

friend,

I suppose my level of expertise is really just limited to thoroughly reading your opening post and the links provided. Nowhere in the link (Dujmović's comment in the Wall Street Journal) does it state he was convicted of a war crime, but rather that he was convicted of a "series of rapes against a El Paso woman"—if such a verdict automatically implies that a rapist is also a war criminal, then maybe you should prove that in your opening post instead of just throwing out a headline and concluding how the whole story ended.

The title should probably correspond to what is written in the opening post—in this case, that wasn't the case, and the title was phrased in a way where one couldn't even guess exactly what the discussion was about. In that sense, the title the colleague has now set for the thread is certainly better than your original one—and if you feel that even this one could be further improved with something better, maybe send me a PM and I will see what can be done.

In any case, I guess expecting a return to the old title is unrealistic. Your title simply wasn't anything special, and it isn't really a huge deal to be this upset about it or to go looking for anyone's "hidden agenda." I don't think there is one; the colleague was just trying to help make your thread more successful and popular than it would have been with your original title.

Anyway. Best wishes for now—send me a PM if you want to change something again, and I will pass it along to the colleagues and we will perhaps do something if you insist. After all, user satisfaction is quite an important priority on this forum.

slybison8