Alrightey,
I crammed a couple hours of sleep this morning, so I'm artificially rejuvenated for the time being. I didn’t do so well on my exam I think, it seems that I studied the wrong materials. Moving on.
In the following: excuse me if I still seem to be in the incoherent rambling nonsense mode, I will try my best not to come in contact with it.
So let’s re-hash this into cliffnotes version for those that want a short summary of what’s going on.
The short version:
Basically, I have a question - or rather a few. These questions seem to reside in similar boundary within the forum rules, but not exactly “stated” by them per se.
As in, it’s more of a utilization of a person’s common sense as the appropriate action to remedy the problem presented. Not that they violate the terms of guidelines.
- 2 of them pertain to the requirements that entitle a topic to become locked.
- 1 pertains to deletion of posts that are generally not offensive, life-threatening, spam, negativity etc (thus, doesn’t fit in the criteria of common sense prerequisite to delete the post).
The question I’m pursuing regarding locked topics, I will state bluntly in simpler terms:
I. Topics and Threads:
- A. Are there a list of reasons outside of common sense that can get a topic locked?
- B. If there was no particular negativity shown by the community in a topic, what can cause it to get locked?
II. User Posts:
- A. If a user’s post does not seem to initiate, follow, transgress, or conclude with any of the following:
- e. Spamming (from advertisements and subcriteria)
Meaning, none of the posts do not or barely (by barely, I am referring to the margin of error in human judgment) enter any of the examples from figure II’s A to F, what would be proper cause for their posts to become deleted?
I am again aware of the original statement that was also shared by Calvin at the start of this thread.
What I am writing about in section II – if what Alex says means that ANY POSTS falling from anywhere the boundary of correctness to incorrect: regardless of on topic, proper trim, negativity, then they [the moderating team] can simply remove ANY post whatsoever without regard to what it is, if this is the “absolute verdict”, then game over.
I took above in the sense that Alex was describing bad posts in general, not just “any post”.
The proper question focuses on when the issues are _not_ of negative context (what we were dubbing as common sense all along), as in they don’t fall in the “bad post” ground from examples a-f shown, then they are still entitled to be deleted?
Yes – you have it there Jolie, as in posts that do not reflect fig.2 A-F that can/may become removed.
That pretty much sums it up. I don’t really have examples to cite, because I think such posts or threads had already became “purged” in that retrospect. One example about a locked topic, is Frisky's concern. I believe [we] strongly believe the thread utilised an ulterior motive that is still "worth" its value even in the outcome it has reached now.
I also tried make these cliff notes shorter, but it comes out so long each time !
Also, there are feedbacks and suggestions I'd like to give (or gave already) but I think that's completely in another chapter. It's just mainly physiological and sociological "cause and effects" of these things occurring, and methods I think that can reduce the collateral damage to an minimum.
It mostly has to do with implementing a "topic/post warning" system that gets our users on the right track while still being able to contribute.
