A first for me
Frank the tank
Posts: 6,553
I've just noticed my FAO Willhub post has been deleted/removed by the mods.
I'm sorry if it caused offence it was meant only as a bit of banter. It's not nice to be picked on and if that's how it appeared I appologise.
I'm sorry if it caused offence it was meant only as a bit of banter. It's not nice to be picked on and if that's how it appeared I appologise.
Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
0
Posts
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
If we can't laugh at someone's face we may as well do it behind their backs....
"The sherrifs coming and he's a... DANNNNG, I tell ya, the Sherriffs coming and..."
Right Frank: You are not the new messiah, you're a very naughty boy. Willhub has had some stick over the jobless whinge, poor basket and you did'nt help, you skulking loafer you, feel guilty? :roll:
I have had at least a dozen threads deleted, I can't think why.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
How did you find that out? He's never mentioned it. Ever.
I saw it too, it was a light hearted jokey question. there's harsher things been said to Will on his absolute c**p thread. Very strange bit of modding unless the lad's taken it the wrong way and complained.
I wouldn't worry about it.
We only take issue with people who persistently break the rules - and usually you'll get a formal warning via the forum if the moderators think you're in danger of being banned.
In this instance, the post got flagged, I took a view that a) it wasn't necessary given the other thread on-going and b) that kind of post might put off new-comers to the forum.
If you have an issue with the way moderation occurs, it's better to post it in the 'discuss the website' section, rather than in cake stop > or discuss it with one of the other moderators.
Why not just lock it then (edited and commented on if need be)? That way, it disappears quickly enough anyway, you don't open yourself open to the accusation of censoring and people can actually see what was moderated and why.
I used to mod a big forum. I don't think I ever deleted a thread and never regretted that. Obviously, different forums work in different ways and this is good or everything would get a bit boring but I just don't understand how it can be justified to delete threads except in exceptional cases.
I didn't particularly feel it was something that was done often enough to warrant a public signpost saying "This poster did something wrong". Ultimately, that's what locking does.
I tend to lock when an example needs to be made - or a discussion has run its course > especially when there is more than one post involved.
Deleting's a bit more discreet on behalf of the person who originally posted. Unless they start a thread about it of course
Thats a fair point it's easy to forget sometimes how banter can be seen from the outside. I remember my first post on here (well the c+ forum) about bike buying and never wanting to intrude on what seemed like the in-jokes of cakestop.
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
This is Frank saying sorry , its DCM2-0's thread you should be making this comment on but I stand by what I said there, I think you've been a bit overzealous with the blue pencil on this one.
experience on here and other forums has shown that you'd get less comment and confusion by editing/locking the offending one and linking to the ongoing one, not anonymously removing - unless the intended recipient has specifically asked for it to go.
I'm not sure on your reasoning at b) if Franks question is enough to put someone off the forum then so be it, they probably wouldn't last very long once they got into any number of the differing opinions and chats on various boards here anyway and I doubt that would be the first thread they'd hit on as a toe in the water one as it was specifically titled FAO Willhub so clearly a direct communication/in-joke one. don't forget you are allowed to credit people with a bit of nouse.
It's easy to say "the post got flagged" and you took the view..., but did it? If as you say it got flagged then obviously you can't/won't say who it was, so - would the 'flagger' like to be big enough to put their hand up and tell us why they deemed it so bad as to report it? I'll bet it wasn't Willhub so I'll be very interested in a response. I'd certainly explain my reasoning on flagging up a post.
Someone reported a thread titled:
"FAO WIllhub"
containing only the words:
"Are you feeling the love ?"
I believe there was a smilie at the end too.
I have three questions:
1) What sort of person complains about that ??
2) Should such a person be allowed out unsupervised ?
3) Exactly how could you you be offended, or put off from the forum by that ? I don't care which way you look at it, there's nothing to get offended at, or be put off by.
Perhaps if you're the sort of person that gets offended at such a thing and jumps to conclusions, without knowing the context (a quick read of the other thread makes it very clear that no one was actually having a go at Will), then you shouldn't be on the internet, let alone a forum.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
How about moving the 'report' button away from the 'quote' and 'edit' buttons. I've hit the 'report' button accidentally when going to edit a post before.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
Can't do anything about that - it's the way it's set up.
FWIW, as a mod I get the 'edit' button on every single post. Have more than once hit the 'edit' button rather than the 'quote' button. Not ideal.
Anyway, when you hit report you need to give a reason before it's submitted.
In that case then, somebody actually gave a reason for reporting ?!?!?!!?!?
Even if you can't share the name, how about sharing the reason given for reporting ?
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
Nah, it's irrelevant anyway. Nor is it cool to try and put peer pressure on whoever reported it. It's anonymous for a good reason. It gets reported, and the moderator takes a view to take action or not.
It should be pretty clear (by now) why it went, even if you disagree.
The moderating here is pretty light-touch as far as I'm concerned. It's pretty rare I use my mod powers at all, beyond removing spam and moving the odd topic to a more appropriate area.
I know it's all very exciting, and it's Friday afternoon and one of your own has had their wings a little clipped, but it's really not a big deal.
It is if it wasn't really reported and you're hiding behind that.
Ultimately, I don't need to justify my actions whatever I do on here - only to the other moderators and the owners of the site.
Similarly, I'm entirely entitled to act on my own impulse to do something, so it's not a case of 'hiding behind' anything. I've taken action elsewhere without it being flagged, so there's no reason why I would say otherwise.
If you take issue with that - like I said, feel free to contact the other mods who agreed to make me mod
I concur with the above. But as it would now seem from what you have written that it wasn't 'flagged', you shouldn't have suggested it was in your previous post thereby laying the blame initially on a third party which is why I used the term 'hiding behind'.
Are you going to hide behind the report system forever,fictitious reports or otherwise?
Eh?
It was flagged. Where have I said it's not?
Nor am I hiding behind it. I said it was flagged, which it was, and took a view < which was my view.
Now, stop whining, else you'll all get banned
You say it got 'flagged', fair enough. I hope Holland get thumped in the Euros - don't pretend that comment got 'flagged' either.