I edited out the last part of what I said, as it came out snarkier than I thought. Generally when people demand a link to prove what I'm saying, it's because they don't believe me. I thought you were questioning whether this rule even existed, as bsobel was. As you can both see, it does.
As is my understanding, I can be sent a general email telling me that my thread was deleted, but there's not going to be any personal comments on it explaining why it was deleted, or who deleted it. If my understanding of the system is wrong, please let me know. I had assumed there was a reason that 90% of the locked threads had an edit and explanation right in the OP to tell the poster what wasn't kosher. Learning that my thread was deleted itself isn't terribly useful, I figured that out on my own. I'd have preferred something a little more specific.
You can question my motives all you want, but I've received nothing but criticism in this post for daring to point out that the mods aren't following their own guidelines. I've ignored it when it's happened before, but this is not the first or even second time this has occurred. Again, I've sent links to locked threads with no explanation, and Derek's very aware of the other threads that were simply nuked for no apparent reason. Whether he does anything about it or not isn't my problem, I guess, I can just keep complaining if it keeps happening. I'm not out to attack anyone personally here, I'm just disgusted by the few mods who apparently have decided they're going to ignore rules that were made to make ATOT better while punishing people who don't follow the member rules.
Also, I can't help but point out that in both of my erased threads, mods were posting in it and having a grand old time. I don't know if they were L&R mods, but a non L&R mod has chimed in on this thread several times, so I don't see why I should ignore a different mod posting in the thread and having no problem with it.
Again, split hairs all you want. Deleting a thread is a bigger deal than locking it. Any reasonable person can see that the "give a reason for locking it" rule also applies to deleting it. It's not "reading into" the rules to exercise common sense.
olds
Elite Member
- Mar 3, 2000
- 50,071
- 744
- 126
Actually, I don't feel I am splitting hairs. I believe I am being literal.
I do know that when there rules were discussed, there was a contingent that felt if a user had been here long enough to know the rules and was posting in a neffing/trolling way, it was appropriate to delete the thread without explanation.
I don't recall the final outcome of that discussion but you'll notice the rules don't say notice must be made if a thread is deleted. Just locked.
On the same token, I can't find the rule that says Mods must sign their names to their edits. I honestly would appreciate it if you could link me to that, too.
On your other concern, you have nothing to fear if you don't start personal attacks. We are trying to resolve this.
A) I wasn't posting in an obviously neffing or trolling way. They offended nobody, were rated highly, participated in by other mods, and I was content to let them die, I was barely posting in either one.
B ) I thought you guys were vehemently opposed to tying yourselves down to very specific interpretations of the rules. Now you're suddenly very to-the-letter? All right.
I appreciate the concern you appear to be showing, but I highly doubt there's any "resolution" to this. Nobody's going to get "fired" as a mod, nor would I ever want them to be over something like this. I'm not trying to publicly rake someone over the coals either, my by far preferred solution was to discuss this privately.
Either nobody's going to step forward and admit to doing it, or I'll come back to this thread to find a "Fuck you, I didn't like your threads so I deleted them, suck it" post from whoever owned up to it.
That actually I know to be a false statement, there were a number of comments about how low L&Rs content had gone. That thread was referenced more than once. So, you can argue they shouldn't have offended anyone, but claiming that as a fact is simply false.
Really? Well, I stand corrected. I don't see how anyone could legitimately be offended by that thread, but you're right, that's not the same as saying no one WAS offended. I still stand by the rest of my comments, however. It'd be tough to find more than one or two posts in ATOT that don't offend SOMEONE, however.
As I posted earlier ... the requirement to sign and give a reason only applies to lock and not delete specifically because it is a bigger deal. We get a lot of posts we have to delete from spammers, blatant rules violations, etc, and sending an explaination for every one is a huge increase in overhead to satisfy a group of people who mostly already knew their thread was going to be deleted when they posted it (there are, of course, exceptions). It is also only useful to the thread's author and not everyone who commented in or viewed the thread. The limited value and added work load of notifying on delete is specifically why we left it out of the requirements.
olds mentioned that there is no requirement to sign an edit ... I'll clarify that right now for you guys and in the rules. It is required to sign an edit. Sorry for the confusion there.
apoppin
Lifer
olds
Elite Member
- Mar 3, 2000
- 50,071
- 744
- 126
3) Editing posts ? Posts that contain content that violates our posting guidelines may be edited by moderators to remove the offending content. If an entire post is blatantly in violation of our guidelines, moderators reserve the right to delete all the text in the post and make any kind of witty comment they feel appropriate. Edits will also be signed by the moderator making the change. Users who post content that needs to be edited will have action taken against them. Initially this will be a warning, but repeated offenses could result in stiffer penalties.
Can we add something in there about sanctioning users responding to posts in the wrong forum? That sure would cut it down.
Sure, all right. I can drop that argument. However, the post, according to the guidelines, never should have been deleted in the first place. I'm not a known spammer or trouble maker, the thread was up for over a month with mod participation, and deleting it was not a last resort. The fact that the deleter wasn't required to note why he did it or identify himself is immaterial, the reasons you're giving for not bothering to do any of that in the first place all apply to deleting posts from spammers and people blatantly trolling. I.e., that it's only done when the poster knows exactly what he did wrong, and no one would learn anything useful from locking and displaying it for all to see. Considering the extensive confusion just in THIS thread regarding what's acceptable in L&R, that's clearly not the case.
If the mod had followed the guidelines, he'd have locked it, and THEN he'd have been required to sign and note why.
I saw the new rules posted in L&R, so thanks for making the rules a bit more clear about what's going to be allowed in there from now on. 
It's still unfortunate whatever mod killed my threads in violation of the guidelines never had the balls to at least admit to it in here, though.
It's still unfortunate whatever mod killed my threads in violation of the guidelines never had the balls to at least admit to it in here, though.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Calm it son.Originally posted by: Agentbolt
I saw the new rules posted in L&R, so thanks for making the rules a bit more clear about what's going to be allowed in there from now on.
It's still unfortunate whatever mod killed my threads in violation of the guidelines never had the balls to at least admit to it in here, though.
I looked over the thread ...
My official ruling is that the thread could have been locked as it did have many posts dealing with / encouraging / etc prostitution. Deleting the thread was NOT out of line with moderator discretion because of this according to the current guidelines. No further action needs to be taken in this case.
At the same time, I do sympathize with the issue of deleting a thread that had been around for a while.
Going forward I am evaluating a change of the guidelines to forbid deletion of threads older than a certain number of days / weeks in favor of a lock or in favor of splitting off the thread from where it degraded to a point that required deletion of many posts. Either way a warning or explanation would be placed in all old threads that were later deemed inappropriate for whatever reason.
We will not be requiring moderators to explain a deletion or to PM the author notifying of deletion. If a moderator chooses to notify you of why a thread was deleted then count your self lucky and thank the mod who went above and beyond to do so.
As always, if a thread is deleted that you don't think should have been, post it here or email me and I will research the issue to the best of my ability.
I am listening to members and moderators and I am trying to make the changes we need to keep things running smoothly here.
We will update the guidelines when the senior moderators and I have finished debating the specifics of the change.
My official ruling is that the thread could have been locked as it did have many posts dealing with / encouraging / etc prostitution. Deleting the thread was NOT out of line with moderator discretion because of this according to the current guidelines. No further action needs to be taken in this case.
At the same time, I do sympathize with the issue of deleting a thread that had been around for a while.
Going forward I am evaluating a change of the guidelines to forbid deletion of threads older than a certain number of days / weeks in favor of a lock or in favor of splitting off the thread from where it degraded to a point that required deletion of many posts. Either way a warning or explanation would be placed in all old threads that were later deemed inappropriate for whatever reason.
We will not be requiring moderators to explain a deletion or to PM the author notifying of deletion. If a moderator chooses to notify you of why a thread was deleted then count your self lucky and thank the mod who went above and beyond to do so.
As always, if a thread is deleted that you don't think should have been, post it here or email me and I will research the issue to the best of my ability.
I am listening to members and moderators and I am trying to make the changes we need to keep things running smoothly here.
We will update the guidelines when the senior moderators and I have finished debating the specifics of the change.
Appreciate your looking into it. If you say it wasn't out of line, then it wasn't out of line. End of story.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 14K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter