There is no misunderstanding as to WHY it was removed, my quarrels lie on that your reasoning was not only invalid, but also changed in your second reply. Had you read my comment, the one you literally replied to in this thread, you'd know that I already know why the thread was removed.

Allow me to explain it in great detail for you, so you might grasp what it is that I have an issue with.

Not a soul had any misunderstanding with my post. One can assume that that's a sign people understood the video, therefore making it quite relatable to Overwatch. According to definitions of "related", casual associations between two entities are considered relationships. By casually associating Overwatch with SpongeBob, I most certainly made a relevant post.

Now, before you possibly cramp your copy/paste finger, let's reiterate; I already know that it was removed for the other rule you linked. The real issue I have with your decision is that once I proved you wrong, you instead chose a different reason to use against me, to justify as to why my post should be removed. It went from relatability, to a vague link to rules, while you STILL claimed that the post lacked relatability.

Seriously, had you just given the legitimate reason the FIRST time, I wouldn't have bothered arguing. However, you changed it in your reply, which to me, is abusive. If I was a police officer, and I wrote someone a ticket for what I believed to be a headlight that was out, but in reality it was just fogged glass, I can't just give them a ticket and modify the reasoning for it and claim that they were speeding. You punished me and my post despite the initial reason being proven false, and simply chose a new one.

Your title of "Moderator" is questionable, although perhaps you simply misspelled "Dictator".