NationStates Jolt Archive

I am sorry, but I would like moderation to get together and seriously discuss this reason for deleting a post. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10703329&postcount=25)

Please don't shove this off. It is one thing to delete a post for flaming or spamming or whatever. It is completely different for a mod to delete something because he believes a question has already been answered, without giving other posters the opportunity the decide for themselves.

This is especially serious when a mod does so in a discussion where his own ruling is being questioned, and someone has asked for clarification on, or has expressed disagreement with such ruling. Of course, there is no way to find out what the post actually said. It was deleted after a couple of minutes.

Thank you.

Original post text:

OOC:

I'm also waiting for an answer to the question of where in the Rules for UN Proposals I'd find the one prohibiting "excessive nitpicking".

The proposer of the repeal quite rightly pointed out the nebulous and vague nature of Resolution #7. The idea that it could only be read as pertaining strictly to sexual activity is not correct. GMC Military Arms stated that "the resolution speaks about 'the afore mentioned activities' [sic]. Now, the only mention of any specific kind of activity is in the title, so we should assume #7 only has to do with sexual activities, not all activities." Not true.

What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

The "aforementioned activities" would be properly read as referring to "What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes", rather than to the title.

This was removed because in post #10 Asarci had said:

Also, "afore mentioned activities" probably refers to "What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes". Not the title. See, now I'm using probably. That's how vague this resolution is.

And I had replied in #12:

And what activities are those? Well, we've nowhere else to look, so how about the resolution's title? 'Sexual Freedom.' Not 'freedom to assemble bombs,' not 'freedom to launder money,' not 'freedom to do whatever the hell you like in your home.'

At a very basic level, the question of what 'the afore mentioned activities' were had already been bought up and addressed. Ausserland's post quoted my response in #8 but ignored my already-present reply to the same question he asked in his deleted post in post #12. It was not a request for clarification, it was asking the exact same question again.

Wouldn't pointing him to the bits were you had already answered be more fair, understandable and better for getting your point across than deleting his post?

Should we assume that 'not listening' is now grounds for deletion?

Wouldn't pointing him to the bits were you had already answered be more fair, understandable and better for getting your point across than deleting his post?

Should we assume that 'not listening' is now grounds for deletion?

Or simply ignoring and moving on because he might not have had a chance to catch up with the debate yet

Wouldn't pointing him to the bits were you had already answered be more fair, understandable and better for getting your point across than deleting his post?

I assumed he simply hadn't seen post #12, actually. The intent of removing the post with a message to check #12 was to point to the fact that the question he was asking had been answered, without adding to the length of the thread.

I assumed he simply hadn't seen post #12, actually. The intent of removing the post with a message to check #12 was to point to the fact that the question he was asking had been answered, without adding to the length of the thread.

*blinks*

And when Ausserland questioned your action.....you didn't explain that to him why?

I'm sorry, I may have missed this bit (feel free to delete my post if I have) but did you say this to Auss at the time? Or did you just delete it without telling him what he'd done wrong, leading to all sorts of confusion and speculation about how you are silencing those who disagree with you.

And have we now got a policy of deleting posts when someone hasn't listened?

And when Ausserland questioned your action.....you didn't explain that to him why?

I assumed he'd see the intent when he realised his question was already present and addressed in post #12. Guess I misjudged that, and if that caused anyone concern I'm truly sorry.

I'm sorry, I may have missed this bit (feel free to delete my post if I have) but did you say this to Auss at the time?

Post deletion text is 'see post #12.'

And have we now got a policy of deleting posts when someone hasn't listened?

Well, I've done this before when I felt a post was [a] redundant and [b] the author would understand that with a prod towards an existing answer.

In future, I'd hazard a guess at 'no.'

I assumed he'd see the intent when he realised his question was already present and addressed in post #12. Guess I misjudged that, and if that caused anyone concern I'm truly sorry.

Yes, this sort of action causes us concern, and the apology is appreciated.

However, and though I hate to take rules discussion to a new level, can you please point out which of the forum rules Auss was breaking with the above post? Is it spam? Is it off-topic? Is it flame-baiting? I would like to know.

I assumed he'd see the intent when he realised his question was already present and addressed in post #12. Guess I misjudged that, and if that caused anyone concern I'm truly sorry.

I certainly read the "deleted by" message and the post to which it referred.

The point had been addressed. That does not mean it had been addressed adequately or satisfactorily. You have repeatedly stated that the phrase "afore mentioned activities" could only refer to the title of the resolution. I pointed out that it would properly be read as a reference to "What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes" earlier in the sentence.

You chose not to respond to that. Instead, you deleted the message. This, I contend, is an abuse of your authority as a Moderator. An honest, respectfully stated disagreement with the opinion of a Moderator does not call for deletion of a post.

Bolding mine

No, I chose to point to where I had already responded to the exact same point earlier in the page. You quoted my first statement, but I had made a second reply to a question identical to your own further down the page.

Do not confuse pointing to a response to the same question with refusing to respond.

Up until this point, your arguments flow with your claim. However, in post 36, after he stated specifically that had had read #12, and he indicated that it was actually an incomplete response in his eyes, you agressively responded criticizing his ability to distinguish. Certainly, there is indication here that you misread #33 (hence why I bolded as I suspect you missed that part), but this is indeed where the confusion lies.

However, and though I hate to take rules discussion to a new level, can you please point out which of the forum rules Auss was breaking with the above post? Is it spam? Is it off-topic? Is it flame-baiting? I would like to know.

Mainly under spam. As I said, I won't be deleting posts under these circumstances in future, but I had done it [occasionally] simply to keep threads with player-moderator discussion on rulings cleaner, since repetition only makes them more difficult to read.

Up until this point, your arguments flow with your claim. However, in post 36, after he stated specifically that had had read #12, and he indicated that it was actually an incomplete response in his eyes

But his further claim that

'I pointed out that it would properly be read as a reference to "What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes" earlier in the sentence'

and that

'[GMC] chose not to respond to that'

indicates he did not, in fact, read post #12 where I had responded to that exact same point; the answer being because the resolution doesn't say what is 'going on' between these adults, we can only look to the title. That still answers his question and requires addressing. I pointed him back to #12 because his argument, stated almost word-for-word by Asarci, had already been answered there.

Somewhat against my better judgement, I've restored it [it's now #19].

OK, fine. I will quote the relevant violation here for reference, and refrain from commenting further:

Spam/SPAM: Off-topic, irrelevant and multi-posts that clog the server. This includes posting lots of smilies which is known as Smilie Spam. Also akin to spamming is Post-whoring which is when a player posts anything just to increase the postcount. Spamming to the point where you get deleted is known as Klamathing. Spamming in the forums should be reported through the Moderation forum, and In-game, through the Getting Help Page.

Whether or not it was a repeated point, poor argument, etc... it wasn't spam, it wasn't a double post, tt wasn't flaming, it wasn't spamming. IT WAS NOT AN ILLIGAL POST. going around deleting posts simply because you think their redundant or poor arguments, disagree with your statment, whatever it is your doing, is wrong, grooming threads for "readability" and space saving are wrong. Certainly we'd all like an easily understood debate, but if it means deleting somebodies argument, however poorly written, repetative, whatever it may be, is wrong.

But his further claim that

'I pointed out that it would properly be read as a reference to "What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes" earlier in the sentence'

and that

'[GMC] chose not to respond to that'

indicates he did not, in fact, read post #12 where I had responded to that exact same point; the answer being because the resolution doesn't say what is 'going on' between these adults, we can only look to the title. That still answers his question and requires addressing. I pointed him back to #12 because his argument, stated almost word-for-word by Asarci, had already been answered there.

Ah, so the issue wasn't a failure to read on either part, it was a failure to communicate on both your parts.

Ausserland felt that you didn't want to explain yourself further even though he was looking for you to explain yourself further. You thought he was merely asking the same question. After 4 posts, you hadn't come to an understanding.

Fair enough, there are other issues that need to be addressed

Whether or not it was a repeated point, poor argument, etc... it wasn't spam, it wasn't a double post, tt wasn't flaming, it wasn't spamming. IT WAS NOT AN ILLIGAL POST. going around deleting posts simply because you think their redundant or poor arguments, disagree with your statment, whatever it is your doing, is wrong, grooming threads for "readability" and space saving are wrong. Certainly we'd all like an easily understood debate, but if it means deleting somebodies argument, however poorly written, repetative, whatever it may be, is wrong.

Wrong why? Many players, including myself, lurk in threads like that to learn the rules better. Player/moderator discussions are very useful to that end. Grooming them to make them more useful to those of us trying to learn what the overall decisiion is and why is inherently more useful than reading 300 posts to try and find the relevant information. It's not a general debate where everyone needs to be heard. It's got a purpose specific to the game in order to help people better understand the rules or to hash the rules out better.

Wrong why? Many players, including myself, lurk in threads like that to learn the rules better. Player/moderator discussions are very useful to that end. Grooming them to make them more useful to those of us trying to learn what the overall decisiion is and why is inherently more useful than reading 300 posts to try and find the relevant information. It's not a general debate where everyone needs to be heard. It's got a purpose specific to the game in order to help people better understand the rules or to hash the rules out better.
Which is reasonable enough - but remember that one of those people trying to understand the rules was Ausserland himself. He's not a mod, just a concerned player. Deleting his post clearly only confused the matter further - as evidenced by all this. Further, the repetition clearly indicates the initial explanation was unsatisfactory. The idea that post #12 simply solved the matter, and that was the end of it, doesn't suggest any willingness to listen to players on the matter - which, given the fact that we're arrogant irrational rules lawyers who post endlessly in the UN forum which is really stupid, perhaps is understandable.

Which is reasonable enough - but remember that one of those people trying to understand the rules was Ausserland himself. He's not a mod, just a concerned player. Deleting his post clearly only confused the matter further - as evidenced by all this. Further, the repetition clearly indicates the initial explanation was unsatisfactory. The idea that post #12 simply solved the matter, and that was the end of it, doesn't suggest any willingness to listen to players on the matter - which, given the fact that we're arrogant irrational rules lawyers who post endlessly in the UN forum which is really stupid, perhaps is understandable.

No, I wasn't suggesting that it was okay in this case. It appears that GMC has capitulated. I was simply defending the general practice, a practice I appreciate when handled well.

The point is that if a discussion goes on for long enough it circles around and around the drain. I think this practice helps that problem so it can actually be resolved. While it may have been poorly applied here (and to be fair I didn't see it), I don't think it suggests it's generally a bad practice. I don't believe GMC had any malice in mind. I think he was just trying to keep things focused and moving towards settling the issue.

Wrong why? Many players, including myself, lurk in threads like that to learn the rules better. Player/moderator discussions are very useful to that end. Grooming them to make them more useful to those of us trying to learn what the overall decisiion is and why is inherently more useful than reading 300 posts to try and find the relevant information. It's not a general debate where everyone needs to be heard. It's got a purpose specific to the game in order to help people better understand the rules or to hash the rules out better.

On the other hand, Ausserland's question may have reflected a similar misunderstanding on the part of many others who would read that thread. Re-phrasing/re-stating an explanation to account for such misunderstandings could benefit more players, since in many cases people just need to have it explained in a different way to make sense of it. Certainly additional clarity is hardly going to hurt matters.

On the other hand, Ausserland's question may have reflected a similar misunderstanding on the part of many others who would read that thread. Re-phrasing/re-stating an explanation to account for such misunderstandings could benefit more players, since in many cases people just need to have it explained in a different way to make sense of it. Certainly additional clarity is hardly going to hurt matters.

I refer you to the above. I wasn't talking only about this instance. Both the poster I was replying to and GMC's response to this instance seemed to be a sweeping generalization about the practice. I think that if he deletes post it should be to improve clarity rather than remove it. Generally this is what he does in practice. If that wasn't the case here, then carry on, but it doesn't mean that he should never try to groom these kinds of threads to make them more clear.

No, I wasn't suggesting that it was okay in this case. It appears that GMC has capitulated. I was simply defending the general practice, a practice I appreciate when handled well.

The point is that if a discussion goes on for long enough it circles around and around the drain. I think this practice helps that problem so it can actually be resolved. While it may have been poorly applied here (and to be fair I didn't see it), I don't think it suggests it's generally a bad practice. I don't believe GMC had any malice in mind. I think he was just trying to keep things focused and moving towards settling the issue.
Yes, I appreciate this particular issue is resolved, and I certainly don't think malice was intended.

But I disagree that such pruning is not bad practice. Anyone can contribute to such discussions - that is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing, because the mods are open to all players; a curse, because some repetition, some off-topicness, some rules lawyers like me, creep in. But I dislike the idea that the mods should snip out anything that's simply repetition, if a final ruling hasn't yet been given. From the perspective of lurking, I would generally only look at the posts the mods are responding to. If they don't respond to them, it's reasonable to assume it's been covered/not worth covering. To the reader, it's a mild annoyance; to the writer, it can come across as downright rude.

As much as anything, this thread is now about 20 posts long. There were several posts in the other thread about this. The idea of saving the topic from one extra post has rather turned in on itself; deleting posts like that, even when the reason is perfectly benevolent, simply lays them open to unnecessary criticism.

Yes, I appreciate this particular issue is resolved, and I certainly don't think malice was intended.

But I disagree that such pruning is not bad practice. Anyone can contribute to such discussions - that is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing, because the mods are open to all players; a curse, because some repetition, some off-topicness, some rules lawyers like me, creep in. But I dislike the idea that the mods should snip out anything that's simply repetition, if a final ruling hasn't yet been given. From the perspective of lurking, I would generally only look at the posts the mods are responding to. If they don't respond to them, it's reasonable to assume it's been covered/not worth covering. To the reader, it's a mild annoyance; to the writer, it can come across as downright rude.

As much as anything, this thread is now about 20 posts long. There were several posts in the other thread about this. The idea of saving the topic from one extra post has rather turned in on itself; deleting posts like that, even when the reason is perfectly benevolent, simply lays them open to unnecessary criticism.

Okay, try not to choke, but I agree with your points. I can see how what you say would work, and I also see that it could cause a lot of issues. I suspect this is what went through GMC's head when he decided not to do it in the future. I still don't see it as a problem if done carefully and rarely, but yeah, I think you have an excellent point.

Might I add that GMC did not decide against doing such "pruning" in the future. After someone requested to see the deleted post in the above thread, I quoted it from here, mentioning that it was deleted for spamming. After reversing his deletion decision, he considered my post redundant (which it essentially was), and immediately deleted it.

My point: I couldn't care less about my post, which was indeed made largely redundant by reinstating Auss'. I consider the issue that led to the creation of this thread solved, as GMC courteously reversed his decision, albeit "against his better judgement." What I would love to have is a general idea about when it is acceptable to delete "previously answered questions" as spam. Without finger-pointing or grudges or anything. Just clarification so that we can all get along nicely and know what expects us in the future.

Is redundancy with someone else's post, or repeating a question you consider unanswered, a spamming violation?

Is redundancy with someone else's post, or repeating a question you consider unanswered, a spamming violation?

There should be no question that simply quoting another post is spam; posts like that are deleted all the time; for example, in the NS forum people sometimes quote an entire several-thousand-word sticky and just add 'great points' or some other single-sentence reply. The real question is of how much the second poster needs to add to the first before the post stops being spam; I was going by the logic that since Ausserland could have quoted Asarci's post, added nothing whatsoever and still have essentially the same post, it was completely redundant.

The exact reasoning behind removing the post and pointing back at #12 [now I'm not tired and can explain better] is had I not done so I would have simply ignored Ausserland's post as repetition and not addressed it at all; at least this way, I reasoned, he recieved a pointer to the existing answer rather than silence.

There should be no question that simply quoting another post is spam; posts like that are deleted all the time; for example, in the NS forum people sometimes quote an entire several-thousand-word sticky and just add 'great points' or some other single-sentence reply. The real question is of how much the second poster needs to add to the first before the post stops being spam; I was going by the logic that since Ausserland could have quoted Asarci's post, added nothing whatsoever and still have essentially the same post, it was completely redundant.

I believe none of the deleted posts in the above thread were simply quoting another post. They all contained additional information. Auss' post was in agreement with Asarci's, for sure, but agreement does not imply repetition. A second poster who quotes a post, agrees with it, and presents additional supporting arguments is furthering the discussion; not spamming the thread.

In the example you present, I would wager the problem lies with quoting an enourmous post, rather than with the fact that a quote is used. Quoting reasonably sized posts, even if just to express agreement, is common practice in any debating forum, and I believe it is not forbidden. During UN drafting or debate, it is quite common for posters to reply to an opinion by adding the word "agreed," or "ditto," or something to that effect. This happens because an opinion supported by other respected members carries more weight. For an example, look at post #5 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10701862&postcount=5) or post #15 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10702752&postcount=15) in the above thread, both of which you didn't delete. It would seem to be a much more serious (and consensual) case of repetition. Admittedly they did not quote the previous post, but neither did Ausserland. Should we expect such posts to be deleted in the future?

The exact reasoning behind removing the post and pointing back at #12 [now I'm not tired and can explain better] is had I not done so I would have simply ignored Ausserland's post as repetition and not addressed it at all; at least this way, I reasoned, he recieved a pointer to the existing answer rather than silence.

In both situations where you deleted posts, a single post was written by the author. Smilies or images were not used. Quotations were kept to a reasonable level. New information or arguments were added. The subject was relevant and on-topic. There was no significant harm to the server or the readability of the thread. Honestly, I fail to see how this could ever be considered spam, and worse, a deletable offense.

Obviously, a moderator has the right to exercise his own discretion in evaluating these things. But as I said before, (and apologising in advance if it was already answered and I didn't notice), should we expect such posts to be deleted in the future?

I believe none of the deleted posts in the above thread were simply quoting another post. They all contained additional information.

Nope, Auss' post contained padding, but the actual point it made was identical. I'd already pointed out the problem with that line of argument, to bring it up again would get you at best a post shoving you back to where the answer was.

New information or arguments were added.

No, there was no argument in Auss' post that wasn't in Asarci's. It contained several extra quotations, but those don't equal new information or new arguments.

But as I said before, (and apologising in advance if it was already answered and I didn't notice), should we expect such posts to be deleted in the future?

Yes, redundant posts will continue to be deleted in future at the discretion of the moderator in question. I will, however, have another moderator evaluate any redundant posts that are disagreeing with one of my own judgements.

That is all.