Posts vanish - no notification, no reason given.

[Q-reeus]

My two recent posts at www.sciforums.com/threads/most-british-scientists-richard-dawkins-work-misrepresents-science.158203/
vanished, presumably because a member complained. I say presumably because there was no email notification. As to it having happened, or justification for doing so. That is standard practice then? Not my idea of responsible and inclusive policy.
Doing a save after every post, means one has a record of those postings, and the responses to them. Which can easily be compared to lot's of other not-deleted postings going on in various threads, right now. Folks literally tearing into each other with great vitriol, mods right in there among them. I should get lucky.
Anyway one has to remember plebs don't get to make or arbitrarily enforce rules.

 

[James R]

My two recent posts at www.sciforums.com/threads/most-british-scientists-richard-dawkins-work-misrepresents-science.158203/
vanished, presumably because a member complained.

The posts in question were off topic and it looks like their main purpose was to attack another member of sciforums.

That's my impression of why they were removed, anyway.

Would you prefer to have some warning points and your posts reinstated?

 

[Kittamaru]

My two recent posts at www.sciforums.com/threads/most-british-scientists-richard-dawkins-work-misrepresents-science.158203/
vanished, presumably because a member complained. I say presumably because there was no email notification. As to it having happened, or justification for doing so. That is standard practice then? Not my idea of responsible and inclusive policy.
Doing a save after every post, means one has a record of those postings, and the responses to them. Which can easily be compared to lot's of other not-deleted postings going on in various threads, right now. Folks literally tearing into each other with great vitriol, mods right in there among them. I should get lucky.
Anyway one has to remember plebs don't get to make or arbitrarily enforce rules.

Indeed, plebs do not.
As James above said - if you wish, we can republish the posts and simply issue you infraction points for your behavior, if you would prefer. Given that you have no current infraction points (and only two historic warnings) I figured it was fair enough to strike the offending posts from both sides and hope the lesson would be learned.

Given the complaint here, I would presume it was not. Rest assured - in the future, I will keep your concerns in mind.

 

[Q-reeus]

The posts in question were off topic and it looks like their main purpose was to attack another member of sciforums.

Technically off-topic yes. But then you have to consider the rich and provable irony I was pointing out. In just one post. And, as my saved copies of the altogether 4 deleted posts show, the reactions to both my posts was actually quite mild, last one even quite complimentary. So, what exactly gives? Delayed reaction time-bomb? By whom? I made the point in #1 here that really viscous flaming is commonplace at SF, with certain mods far from immune to dishing that out. But rare to have such posts go poof and vanish. Just ask and I'll serve up any number of choice examples that make my single 'offensive' deleted post look very mild, and certainly relevant, by comparison. If the rules are rough-and-tumble in practice, then have it apply equally. If civility is intended, apply things equally.

That's my impression of why they were removed, anyway.

In other words you had no direct hand in it. Righto then. One less person unknown.

Would you prefer to have some warning points and your posts reinstated?

There is some kind of Faustian bargain process here? Please elaborate. You have read my piece above. I see no consistency in those 4 posts being selectively excised in the first place.
PS - noticed Kittamaru's post just now, but what's here should suffice to cover both your replies.

 

[Q-reeus]

OK, I can wear a severe edit to my original post in above linked thread. See if this version still causes angst:

I often compare Richard Dawkins to the late Carl Sagan.
Both hold the same view, but what a difference in styles!!!
In my opinion, Dawkins to me sometimes appears much to abrasive, compared to the more dulcet, calm, softer approach of Sagan...

If only you were being self-ironic, instead of exhibiting true irony there. As well demonstrated in another recent thread. How do you like to put it again? Ah yes; 'pot, kettle, black'.

Does above now meet with mod approval? I take it there is no real issue with the other 3 deleted posts.[/QUOTE]

 

[James R]

Q-reeus:

The argument that some other people (moderators, even) have posted worse things than you and therefore your posts weren't worthy of moderator attention doesn't count for a lot. Two wrongs don't make a right.

In other words you had no direct hand in it. Righto then. One less person unknown.

Kittamaru has said above that he was the one who deleted the posts.

There is some kind of Faustian bargain process here? Please elaborate. You have read my piece above. I see no consistency in those 4 posts being selectively excised in the first place.

Yes, you already said that.

Ok. Let's make it simple. I can restore all 4 deleted posts and you can have 10 warning points for personally attacking another member, OR we can leave the posts deleted and move on with our lives. Call it a Faustian bargain if you like.

In my role as Administrator here, I currently see no compelling reason to override the decision of another moderator in order to restore those 4 posts without imposing some other kind of penalty in the alternative.

 

[Q-reeus]

Q-reeus:

The argument that some other people (moderators, even) have posted worse things than you and therefore your posts weren't worthy of moderator attention doesn't count for a lot. Two wrongs don't make a right.


Kittamaru has said above that he was the one who deleted the posts.


Yes, you already said that.

Ok. Let's make it simple. I can restore all 4 deleted posts and you can have 10 warning points for personally attacking another member, OR we can leave the posts deleted and move on with our lives. Call it a Faustian bargain if you like.

In my role as Administrator here, I currently see no compelling reason to override the decision of another moderator in order to restore those 4 posts without imposing some other kind of penalty in the alternative.

Clearly no point my further arguing relative right and wrong on this matter. Too few here give a rat's about character traits and inconsistencies that bug me. So as far as I'm concerned forget about restoring those posts. Not worth it. Won't change pov's or attitudes. Bye.