under what circumstances can a post be deleted?

[btthegreat]

I wrote a post that breached rule 3 and had no redeeming virtue otherwise. I realized it broke rule 3 post edit time, and self- reported my post and requested it be deleted, presuming that would be a popular choice with moderators, who clearly don't want such posts written and posted, otherwise there would not be a rule 3. Later I received my warning and was informed that the forum would not delete the offending post, because deleting posts was against forum rules. I just don't get it. I have never been in a forum where naughty posts are not deleted. I, its author, don't want the damn thing there, otherwise I would not have reported it and asked for it to be deleted. Moderators can't want the damn thing there, because it is likely to cause dissension and trouble. Posts that break the rules of decorum and civility are, by definition -defined as troublesome. There is absolutely no point in self-reporting the rule breaking material, if it just stays anyway

So when do you guys delete posts, and why would anyone want that post or similar ones to stay? I am baffled. Could not a rule change allow for such posts to be deleted if all parties concerned want it gone?

 

[ecofarm]

It's best we leave it there so a nose can be rubbed in it.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Now I'm curious.

 

[Mycroft]

I wrote a post that breached rule 3 and had no redeeming virtue otherwise. I realized it broke rule 3 post edit time, and self- reported my post and requested it be deleted, presuming that would be a popular choice with moderators, who clearly don't want such posts written and posted, otherwise there would not be a rule 3. Later I received my warning and was informed that the forum would not delete the offending post, because deleting posts was against forum rules. I just don't get it. I have never been in a forum where naughty posts are not deleted. I, its author, don't want the damn thing there, otherwise I would not have reported it and asked for it to be deleted. Moderators can't want the damn thing there, because it is likely to cause dissension and trouble. Posts that break the rules of decorum and civility are, by definition -defined as troublesome. There is absolutely no point in self-reporting the rule breaking material, if it just stays anyway

So when do you guys delete posts, and why would anyone want that post or similar ones to stay? I am baffled. Could not a rule change allow for such posts to be deleted if all parties concerned want it gone?

You are now violating another forum rule by discussing mod actions.

I suggest you stop while you are ahead.

Regarding your issue, I think it's best you take that up with the mod team. If you object to a mod's decision, you can appeal. If I recall, the issue is then reviewed by a group of mods and a ruling issued.

 

[Court Jester]

You are now violating another forum rule by discussing mod actions.

I suggest you stop while you are ahead.

Regarding your issue, I think it's best you take that up with the mod team. If you object to a mod's decision, you can appeal. If I recall, the issue is then reviewed by a group of mods and a ruling issued.

Yes, I agree.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Yes, I agree.

LOL - oh my.

 

[reflechissez]

I wrote a post that breached rule 3 and had no redeeming virtue otherwise. I realized it broke rule 3 post edit time, and self- reported my post and requested it be deleted, presuming that would be a popular choice with moderators, who clearly don't want such posts written and posted, otherwise there would not be a rule 3. Later I received my warning and was informed that the forum would not delete the offending post, because deleting posts was against forum rules. I just don't get it. I have never been in a forum where naughty posts are not deleted. I, its author, don't want the damn thing there, otherwise I would not have reported it and asked for it to be deleted. Moderators can't want the damn thing there, because it is likely to cause dissension and trouble. Posts that break the rules of decorum and civility are, by definition -defined as troublesome. There is absolutely no point in self-reporting the rule breaking material, if it just stays anyway

So when do you guys delete posts, and why would anyone want that post or similar ones to stay? I am baffled. Could not a rule change allow for such posts to be deleted if all parties concerned want it gone?

One of the problems it causes is that posters (particularly newcomers) think the posts are acceptable because they're still standing.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I wrote a post that breached rule 3 and had no redeeming virtue otherwise. I realized it broke rule 3 post edit time, and self- reported my post and requested it be deleted, presuming that would be a popular choice with moderators, who clearly don't want such posts written and posted, otherwise there would not be a rule 3. Later I received my warning and was informed that the forum would not delete the offending post, because deleting posts was against forum rules. I just don't get it. I have never been in a forum where naughty posts are not deleted. I, its author, don't want the damn thing there, otherwise I would not have reported it and asked for it to be deleted. Moderators can't want the damn thing there, because it is likely to cause dissension and trouble. Posts that break the rules of decorum and civility are, by definition -defined as troublesome. There is absolutely no point in self-reporting the rule breaking material, if it just stays anyway

So when do you guys delete posts, and why would anyone want that post or similar ones to stay? I am baffled. Could not a rule change allow for such posts to be deleted if all parties concerned want it gone?

It would be wise to not take this any further, but if you feel you must then use the 'Contact Us' at the bottom of these pages and keep it out of the forums. Just begging for more things to happen.

 

[btthegreat]

You are now violating another forum rule by discussing mod actions.

I suggest you stop while you are ahead.

Regarding your issue, I think it's best you take that up with the mod team. If you object to a mod's decision, you can appeal. If I recall, the issue is then reviewed by a group of mods and a ruling issued.

Now you have me worried. I should clarify, I don't know enough to 'object'. The moderator made the correct call because the decision is consistent with the rules so this is outside the purview of the appeal process which is what the form I was referred to, was made for. I just don't understand the purpose of the rule itself. This case was simply an example of why I propose an amendment. I am proposing a possible amendment to the rule when both a moderator and the poster in breach agree, which hopefully goes under the heading of 'feedback' .

 

[VySky]

🍿

 

[Mycroft]

Now you have me worried. I should clarify, I don't know enough to 'object'. The moderator made the correct call because the decision is consistent with the rules so this is outside the purview of the appeal process which is what the form I was referred to, was made for. I just don't understand the purpose of the rule itself. This case was simply an example of why I propose an amendment. I am proposing a possible amendment to the rule when both a moderator and the poster in breach agree, which hopefully goes under the heading of 'feedback' .

sigh...

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Moving on...

 

[Redress]

I wrote a post that breached rule 3 and had no redeeming virtue otherwise. I realized it broke rule 3 post edit time, and self- reported my post and requested it be deleted, presuming that would be a popular choice with moderators, who clearly don't want such posts written and posted, otherwise there would not be a rule 3. Later I received my warning and was informed that the forum would not delete the offending post, because deleting posts was against forum rules. I just don't get it. I have never been in a forum where naughty posts are not deleted. I, its author, don't want the damn thing there, otherwise I would not have reported it and asked for it to be deleted. Moderators can't want the damn thing there, because it is likely to cause dissension and trouble. Posts that break the rules of decorum and civility are, by definition -defined as troublesome. There is absolutely no point in self-reporting the rule breaking material, if it just stays anyway

So when do you guys delete posts, and why would anyone want that post or similar ones to stay? I am baffled. Could not a rule change allow for such posts to be deleted if all parties concerned want it gone?

Moderator's Warning:

ANswer: porn, privacy, advertising, a few other cases. Locking this due to all the trolling going on.