I would have not locked the thread, even if there are personal attacks against me.

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
So in summary, avoiding the "YOU" allows an individual to escape from being held to "account"
Nope, eliminating the "YOU" word from a post tends to keep the conversation focused on the topic rather than the person which helps to avoid misunderstandings. I'm not here to talk about people, I'm here to talk about issues and possibly help people along the way.

...well that's on "YOU"... oops sorry......
It was on me, 100%. I broke the T&Cs and they did what they had to. (BTW, I did have a backup that I started with, but deleted it after successfully posting.)

But I didn't lose value, they did.

The point was, had they edited and deleted the offense (a URL) they could still have had the value of the post (lots of first-hand data/experience nowhere else to be found which is why I posted it). It doesn't hurt me to lose a post, I wrote it to benefit others and that's the real value that was lost. They also lost all future posts. I even find myself doing that here now.

Changing someone's words ...
Posts were never edited to change someone's intent, rather it was to remove the T&C violations while leaving the value of the post intact. If posts were edited "to change someone's intent" they could easily have had the moderator removed if it wasn't tangled up in some hideous T&C violation. If that didn't happen, that's on them.
 

noenegdod

Solar Addict
If people held themselves to account (yes we are talking about integrity and personal responsibility here) Being excellent to other people would be a natural by product. Perpetuating denial and irresponsibility of ones actions only further deteriorates the founding fabric of what's good and just. I.E. see something... say something.
Wishful thinking (its my wishful thinking as well). Its 2021. Just shriek, claim victim status based on some immutable characteristic or identity and expect someone who is already doing their part to come and carry their water for them. And today there is always some moron standing around who is willing to do it so they can feel better about what ever "guilt" it is that has been assigned to them.
 

noenegdod

Solar Addict
Posts were never edited to change someone's intent, rather it was to remove the T&C violations while leaving the value of the post intact. If posts were edited "to change someone's intent" they could easily have had the moderator removed if it wasn't tangled up in some hideous T&C violation. If that didn't happen, that's on them.
YOU think you never did that but you did to that to a couple of mine and as said before, i think it made the post look stupid.
 

Jerrys13

Solar Enthusiast
Nope, eliminating the "YOU" word from a post tends to keep the conversation focused on the topic rather than the person which helps to avoid misunderstandings. I'm not here to talk about people, I'm here to talk about issues and possibly help people along the way.


It was on me, 100%. I broke the T&Cs and they did what they had to. (BTW, I did have a backup that I started with, but deleted it after successfully posting.)
"It took me hours to write. I was pissed. All that information lost. If they'd just edited out that one link or made the contents available to me I could have and would have fixed it."
So why be "pissed"? How come the information was then "lost"? Why not keep the data? That's my point. Seems to me your more about being justified in your actions and being "right" than anything else as another poster stated. Answer for everything... I once heard that "just because you have all the answers doesn't necessarily always mean their right". I am not referring to T&C violations, I am referring to what you could have done in order to prevent you from getting "pissed" in the first place, which leads us to why your feel justified doing here and now. Painting yourself as a martyr of your own beliefs does not lend weight to justifying something which is unjust. Why not ask the poster to remove their post instead of tampering with it?
But I didn't lose value, they did.

The point was, had they edited and deleted the offense (a URL) they could still have had the value of the post (lots of first-hand data/experience nowhere else to be found which is why I posted it). It doesn't hurt me to lose a post, I wrote it to benefit others and that's the real value that was lost.
"Had they...." Had YOU asked them what was up and then cut and paste the draft from word we wouldn't be here asking you to stop tampering with peoples posts. There you go, value could have been preserved.
They also lost all future posts. I even find myself doing that here now.
Taking your toys and going home is not exactly being a team player, and it sure as hell does not lend credence to the responsibilities bestowed upon you as a Moderator. If it we're me, I believe it would bring my own character into question. That's me though.
Posts were never edited to change someone's intent, rather it was to remove the T&C violations while leaving the value of the post intact. If posts were edited "to change someone's intent" they could easily have had the moderator removed if it wasn't tangled up in some hideous T&C violation. If that didn't happen, that's on them.
Here we go again, changing anything from its original format is tampering if not fraud. If it were really about "Value of the post" we the people would be still benefiting from all the posts you would have graciously provided up until today... but no... you took your toys and went home. Not only did you do that, but you came back with rock salt. Jeezo pete!
 

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else

Thread & Topic Summary to date​


This Thread
There was an incident in a single thread of multiple violations and many posts were edited and deleted by multiple moderators. An accusation was made that they did so to favor a forum vendor. This thread asked for a straight-up/down vote on the accusation from the forum owner as a neutral party after reviewing the evidence as without clear vindication any action the moderator took afterward would invariably cause more work for the moderator team. That clarity was not received and the issue is now moot to the OP as they have since resigned. The original incident thread conversation was restarted and they reached a satisfactory conclusion that didn't involve conspiracies.

Off-topic issue regarding Edits
While no one made any public complaints about edits in the incident thread (other than assumed vendor favoritism), a single past grievance was brought up where a member felt unfairly treated and several more stated their extreme dislike for any form of editing and problems on other forums. There were also accusations of changes to alter the intent, but no examples were offered. The forums keep a history of such edits, so they are easy to prove or disprove. Some posters came out in favor of edits, moderation, and/or the moderator (e.g., #6, #8, #16).

During the course of the thread, it was pointed out by two moderators that any moderation can and should be challenged if there is just cause.

Will did make two changes: he removed all moderators' ability to edit posts, and he allowed any member to edit past posts. That enables those with edit-based grievances to correct the problem. ref

The thread is kept alive now by the occasional post regarding how someone feels about edits, to express their opinions on the various shortcomings of the ex-moderator, and the ex-moderator responding when the post seems pertinent. There is a thread specifically to discuss edits here.

Off-topic issue regarding Personal Attacks
The member with the grievance stated that they felt coddling members was a disservice (ref) and that personal attacks were acceptable (ref).

However, the T&C's say:
Be civil. If multiple members complain about disruptive behavior of a member, they will be banned.

However, if you make a personal attack and then regret it afterward you have no recourse to edit it as that is also grounds to be banned (ref).
Will believes that leaving attacks shames members and will provide a valuable lesson (ref).
 

noenegdod

Solar Addict

Thread & Topic Summary to date​


This Thread
There was an incident in a single thread of multiple violations and many posts were edited and deleted by multiple moderators. An accusation was made that they did so to favor a forum vendor. This thread asked for a straight-up/down vote on the accusation from the forum owner as a neutral party after reviewing the evidence as without clear vindication any action the moderator took afterward would invariably cause more work for the moderator team. That clarity was not received and the issue is now moot to the OP as they have since resigned. The original incident thread conversation was restarted and they reached a satisfactory conclusion that didn't involve conspiracies.

Off-topic issue regarding Edits
While no one made any public complaints about edits in the incident thread (other than assumed vendor favoritism), a single past grievance was brought up where a member felt unfairly treated and several more stated their extreme dislike for any form of editing and problems on other forums. There were also accusations of changes to alter the intent, but no examples were offered. The forums keep a history of such edits, so they are easy to prove or disprove. Some posters came out in favor of edits, moderation, and/or the moderator (e.g., #6, #8, #16).

During the course of the thread, it was pointed out by two moderators that any moderation can and should be challenged if there is just cause.

Will did make two changes: he removed all moderators' ability to edit posts, and he allowed any member to edit past posts. That enables those with edit-based grievances to correct the problem. ref

The thread is kept alive now by the occasional post regarding how someone feels about edits, to express their opinions on the various shortcomings of the ex-moderator, and the ex-moderator responding when the post seems pertinent. There is a thread specifically to discuss edits here.

Off-topic issue regarding Personal Attacks
The member with the grievance stated that they felt coddling members was a disservice (ref) and that personal attacks were acceptable (ref).

However, the T&C's say:


However, if you make a personal attack and then regret it afterward you have no recourse to edit it as that is also grounds to be banned (ref).
Will believes that leaving attacks shames members and will provide a valuable lesson (ref).
I am apparently on this snowflakes ignore list so he should not reply but holy hell, talk about not being able to let something go.
 

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
To provide a balanced and (hopefully) fair synopsis of the thread I had to include your posts, happy to see I didn't miss anything. That's why so many people lose arguments with trolls though, they try to be fair and honest while the troll just makes crap up. If anyone spots anything in the synopsis in error or unfair please let me know and I'll update it.

But there's no reason for me to "let it go", it's my character that's wrongfully besmirched after all. How many guilty people, I wonder, ask for their day in court? But, as long as folks want to post here I'll cheerfully respond to stuff that isn't just too crazy (or possibly laugh at them if it is).

For example, your last post has two T&C violations:
  1. Posts should stay on topic.
  2. Be civil.
 
Last edited:

noenegdod

Solar Addict
To provide a balanced and (hopefully) fair synopsis of the thread I had to include your posts, happy to see I didn't miss anything. That's why so many people lose arguments with trolls though, they try to be fair and honest while the troll just makes crap up. If anyone spots anything in the synopsis in error or unfair please let me know and I'll update it.

But there's no reason for me "let it go", it's my character that's wrongfully besmirched after all. How many guilty people, I wonder, ask for their day in court? But, as long as folks want to post here I'll cheerfully respond to stuff that isn't just too crazy (or possibly laugh at them if it is).

For example, your last post has two T&C violations:
  1. Posts should stay on topic.
  2. Be civil.
This is a prime example of the type of person you do not want to be in charge of anything. They paint the world as they see fit but work to rule when it suits them.

As a demonstration of the hypocrisy the far left willfully ignores when convienent, while you have danced around calling me a troll, that is in effect what you have done. So while you are offended by being characterized as a snowflake, you have no problem referring to others as trolls.

Unsubscribed.
 

Supervstech

Administrator
Staff member
Moderator
YOU think you never did that but you did to that to a couple of mine and as said before, i think it made the post look stupid.
YOU keep claiming this... but I don't see a reported post i can restore from making you look like a moron...
 

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
...As a demonstration of the hypocrisy the far left willfully ignores when convienent, while you have danced around calling me a troll, that is in effect what you have done. So while you are offended by being characterized as a snowflake, you have no problem referring to others as trolls.
PEW Research claims name-calling (e.g., snowflake) is trolling (ref). So innuendo or not it's a factual representation of your behavior and easily referenced and acknowledged by authorities smarter than me. Similar is making up crazy conspiracy theories about people as it pushes them to a point where they need to defend themselves.

YOU keep claiming this... but I don't see a reported post i can restore from making you look like a moron...
I'd give it to him, I'm not perfect and probably made plenty of mistakes (despite only one complaint). Wish he'd complained about it at the time though rather than let it fester. I do have vague memories of editing posts where the attack was deeply embedded and trying to change as little as possible (e.g., just cutting out the attack) it may not have read correctly afterward. Of course, the "looking moronic" before/after is debatable since some may well feel he looked that way due to the attack (me for one). Sort of moot as he can edit his own posts now anyway.
 
Last edited:

AndyRonLI

Solar Enthusiast
25 years, well kido i have been online since Arpanet was a thing ;)
1984 at Playnet for me! 37 years online! In the first group of people to be told be careful, that beta tester is not a 22 year old nursing student, she is 13 and our biggest investors grand-daughter. Catfishing took less than a month to occur when we went online. And a couple of BBS before that even.
 

NwCali

Solar Addict
Meh, if ya feel the need to edit a post you should delete the post ....Or...not edit the post....and live with it. If the person keeps making post that are that far "off" then bann them (eventually).

Anything different is simply wrong.

I was banned of LOCO for saying someone was "white trash" (they are). Sadly its a community "news" web page and now I can't post good relevant things (like a friend who died).

But I'm fine with not being a part of a place where people are so butt hurt when the truth is said, just said in a way that "offends" them....

I never cursed before I joined the military. funny how wars (inmoral ones) change you...
 

svetz

Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Meh, if ya feel the need to edit a post you should delete the post ....Or...not edit the post....and live with it. If the person keeps making post that are that far "off" then bann them (eventually).
There's a thread specifically to discuss edits here. Moderators no longer edit posts, see #51 for more on the current policy.

... when the truth is said, just said in a way that "offends" them....
Edit/deletes were always about removing T&C violations, which encourage truth. Except for politics & religion (which go to hell to fast to moderate), it's never been about hiding truth or even so much offensive words (many of us have colorful vocabularies after all).

But attacks on members have always been against the T&Cs. That said, I do agree that many of those attacks are due to such a fragile version of the truth they are outraged by opposing views rather than able to dialog. Personally, I blame media manipulation, even those hardened against their psychological tricks can easily fall prey.
JackNicholson.jpg

(A few good men is a great movie if you haven't seen it).
 
Top