My whole post should not have been deleted. Go and read the post and tell me - even if some of it was "rude" - what % of the post should have been removed.
Edited? But why was entire post removed?
Agreed. That's a bit heavy handed in handling a post with parts that are against BLUA or forum guidelines. Better is to edit out the wrong parts, leaving the rest intact, and communicate with the poster what was removed and why.
One positive thing that I will say - only after I complained - is that now the specific parts of my post that the mods are unhappy with are being edited out as opposed to them removing the entire post.
What? They actually went back and corrected their mistake? OMG!!
Tho, to you, it's "only after I complained", I get that. You have no visibility to any conversations held by staff on this topic during that in-between time, or what/how we are discussing things today. I assure you, your 'complaint' is not the only factor in changing how things are done.
Because that has happened before, and I'm certain that there have been occurrences where the mod has been unhappy with the content of my post so they've used 'enforcing the rules' as a way to remove the entire post. I hope this won't happen anymore because that feels like blatant censorship.
Sr. Staff can see edit history on a post. If you feel you (anyone) are being unfairly edited or deleted, you can notify us. You can REPORT a post (your edited version of what's left, or one above-below where your deleted post was), or PM any of Sr. Staff to come take a look.
As a note of public information, before a mod edits or deletes a post, THEY will traditionally REPORT it themselves. This flags it for the rest of staff (related forum mods and sr. staff) to be aligned on IF action is needed and WHAT action is needed. This also creates a record for staff of what the post said BEFORE it was edited.
Wholesale deletion of a post is rare, usually employed when several posts in a row go off topic and can't be moved to a more appropriate home or collectively are in violation of BLUA for forum guidelines. But again, before action is taken, there is discussion by the involved staff.
Last point on this topic, as Soso alluded to similar (mod edits, specifically to instigate a ban). Is it happening today? If it were, would either of you be posting?
And I just noticed that 6 of my posts were retroactively edited or deleted. Then the mods here have the gall to state that I'm not being censored or receiving unfair treatment. The difference is that I have to go out of my way to report a post, which is against my values (free speech - and my "insults" here are always indirect, creative and relevant). But the moderation team will not wait for any reports of my posts -they will take it upon themselves to edit or delete my posts because my posts criticize their personal political ideology.
Again, as a public reminder, when a staff member edits YOUR post, you should get notice of the WHY and WHAT. On the other hand, other than staff, NO member sees what is edited or deleted of other member posts unless they are watching the forum relentlessly and notice something changed. I say this, because you may have had a handful of posts retroactively edited or deleted...there are posts by several persons that have been addressed in this manner. Sorry, you aren't special in this instance.
You can operate within your 'values', but we operate the site within our rules and guidelines. We WILL enforce our rules, or modify them if we feel it is needed. How we operate the site relies on members (A LOT) - not just for constructive content, but for participation in flagging other posts that need attention. If you don't want to participate, that's your choice. It is one less voice using the system to drive fairness where you think someone (member or staff) is out of line.
Lastly, do not assert as fact things which you do not know at all. Specifically, staff are NOT 'take it upon themselves to edit or delete my posts because my posts criticize their personal political ideology.' This is patently, and provably false. You may feel this way, but point of fact this is NOT occurring.
I've just been warned via PM about an "ad hom".
However there's no post attached and the alleged violation isn't even referenced - so how the fuck am I supposed to know what the moderators have a problem with??
Also the conversation is automatically closed so I can't even reply via DM - this is not a respectable way to moderate the forum.
What did I say to receive the warning so that I'll self-censor myself extra next time?
The mod should have included reference. You are correct. Closing the PM from replies is also poor form (tho, mods are not required to respond, should a member reply to the PM). In general, mods should point to exactly what the problem was (link or quote it). I can't answer what's behind the gap in this particular correspondence, given I'm not part of the PM.
I can make an educated guess on two counts - the mod was probably quite busy, especially if they were going back to address ad homs by others in the thread; and given your years of experience here they may have assumed you would know what you posted and what they referenced. I, personally, don't think the second part of that is viable - it is possible, but shouldn't be the practice.
