I made it clear I was talking about a certain type of post from a certain type of poster.
Vulgar language…obvious TOS violations…those types of things…yes I would expect removal and if other posts got removed as well because you had to ax a thread…well the posters could probably figure out why.
But Hindsight is not known for trolling or start trolling threads. His post contained no obvious ToS violation. He added short but to the point content describing what he wanted to point out…obvious intent to start a conversation.
It’s those types of posts…from long time posters where, if an initial stance of assuming no ill intent was adopted by the mods, I bet it would cut down your work, not add to it.
I think we all know trolling when we see it, is all I’m saying.
We had a tweet as the source material for a thread whose sole purpose was to make fun of AOC for not knowing what a garbage disposal was. You’re saying this was much worse than that?
Believe it or not, I am trying to offer suggestions that lessen the workload of a mod, not increase it.
Look at the content of the opening post of that thread. What forum catagory it was in (not politics). Again it’s how things are presented. There have been a lot of threads that get delete from the tone and context of the OP, and another creates a thread on the same topic with a different tone and context that remain.
I am assuming by not addressing what I asked, you’re essentially saying “No…I am not going to adopt a policy of an initial assumption of ‘no ill intent’ on the part of long time posters who are not known for trolling”?
Thanks in advance if that’s what you’re saying. I’ll close by saying that one reason football officiating is so hard on officials recently is because so many penalties are now “case by case judgement calls”.
Why don’t the moderators go to the community section and just give an explanation. This post was deleted for X. This is how we interpreted X as a violation of Y (rule). This way no one gets caught thinking some sort of favortism or what ever people think was going on. Hell write the post and lock it so no one can respond. But it would be great to put the explanation there. We are trying to learn to stay with in the TOS and rules…but when we throw in case by case basis…it becomes more subjective to those of us who are not moderators.
The problem we have with Trolls being deleted is that sometimes it seems that Troll is a catch all phrase to use to get rid of a thread that is in some other way problematic that maybe does not violate TOS.
I say this because if ever there was a troll it was Democrats for Donald. D4D was allowed to troll here for days, almost a week. If ever there was troll that was it.
I’m not trying to be contemptuous, but this is why we have a hard time figuring things out.
We have lives outside here. Many time’s it’s checking on the phone to see if there are reports. A quick sit down to peruse the board.
It’s like a poster who just got a time out for a word we can’t filter. When used in many ways it’s 100% fine on the board. Way they used it is an automatic time out.
His posts were borderline, and some were deleted (and his tantram over that led to his banning). Most of his was information he/she collected. It wasn’t trolling.
But the decision was made to combine all the similar one’s into a single thread.
That one was easy and straightforward for everyone to see. Soon as I saw that post (if it’s the one I think it was) I suspected it would be problematic.
Hindsight’s post was nowhere near that objective. It was a post of a tweet (done on these boards many times) with a short but pertinent statement by the poster of what he wanted to discuss. It was in Politics, appropriately because it was a political comment.
It was made by a poster who, I will state again, has not made a habit of trolling.
Your interpretation that it was trolling was, as far as I can tell, nowhere near as objective as the ruling on the unfiltered but inappropriately used word. It was, as far as we can tell, solely an interpretation on your part. As a mod, you all can do that…Sean’s house…Sean’s rules…but it wasn’t nearly the same thing as the other violation.
Again- all that’s being asked is to go with the assumption of no ill intent if it’s a long-time poster with a good record and if the case is borderline. Is that a request you feel is too onerous? Because I think it’ll make your job easier.
