To My fellow posters

[Jake]

If it seems I don't answer some of your posts, it's because some mod has taken to deleting them - sometimes it seems almost at random. If you want a response to your post that seems to have been unanswered, PM me.

[stekim]

You must be breaking forum rules somehow. Us mod-types don't delete many posts.

[JavaBlack]

I know I personally generate a random number everyday that corresponds to one of the threads on this site and I delete it. I feel it's my duty to delete things and how unfair would it be if I didn't do it randomly?
OK... so maybe I don't do that.
I do however sometimes delete threads that pop up in any forum other than perhaps off-topic, where the only message seems to be "The threads in this forum suck." Somehow that doesn't strike me as being on-topic.

[SpankyTheWhale]

I may not like some of your political opinions, and I might think you are sometimes more aggressive than you need to be, but moderator involvement is not what I think is warranted here. This is of course from what I have seen of your posts. This means that by definition I haven't seen the posts that have been deleted, and maybe they did deserve to be deleted. Maybe, although I do not think it is necessary, your account should be deleted based on the statements you made in the deleted posts. Again, I can't know the answer because I haven't seen the deleted posts. However, if they are, indeed, random deletions, then I can base my opinion on the posts of yours that I have seen. In that case, I have already expressed my view that your posts should not suffer deletion. In fact, I cannot think of a single regular or semi-regular poster that I know of who does deserve deletion of their account or even deletions of their posts.

[The12thMan]

There is one reason I can think of for deleting a post which does not itself break any rules. I deleted one of Jake's posts for that reason.

[SpankyTheWhale]

Originally Posted by The12thMan";p=&quot

There is one reason I can think of for deleting a post which does not itself break any rules. I deleted one of Jake's posts for that reason.

You say that there is one reason that you can think of to delete noninherently rulebreaking posts, but you do not care to elaborate. So do you mind telling us that criterion for deletion of rule-abiding posts?

[The12thMan]

Well, I thought y'all might enjoy a little riddle, but OK.

If a post is in reply to a deleted or edited post, it's likely to need editing or deletion for the coherence of the thread, regardless of the post's allowable content.

[SpankyTheWhale]

Originally Posted by The12thMan";p=&quot

Well, I thought y'all might enjoy a little riddle, but OK.

If a post is in reply to a deleted or edited post, it's likely to need editing or deletion for the coherence of the thread, regardless of the post's allowable content.

"WOW" is all I can say that will filter thorugh the censors unharmed. Let me explain. I had been, until just recently, a regular on another message board in which design was minimal and the board style left much to be desired. In this board, deleted posts were actually kept as "place holders" but with the message "This post has been deleted by the (poster/administrator)." As such, posts that replied to the deleted post were left unharmed, much to my displeasure. I thought that it would have been better to either delete all responses to the post or to just leave the post up regardless of the supposedly offensive content. I felt that it severely interferred with the fluidity of the threads and created a lack of cohesion within the message board system. I thought that was a horrible policy and a horrible waste of space. Usually I ended up deleting my own replies to deleted posts because it started not making any sense to keep them there. This, along with 11 other facets of the system I determined to be problems, factored into my leaving that site and taking up regularity in this forum. However, due to my experience with the last message board, I had not figured that deleting "irrelevant posts" to be the policy here. I should have taken note of the cleanliness and crispness of this site and should have known better than that. What I am trying to express is my amazement that a policy actually makes sense.

[Tedminator]

Originally Posted by SpankyTheWhale";p=&quot

I may not like some of your political opinions, and I might think you are sometimes more aggressive than you need to be, but moderator involvement is not what I think is warranted here. This is of course from what I have seen of your posts. This means that by definition I haven't seen the posts that have been deleted, and maybe they did deserve to be deleted. Maybe, although I do not think it is necessary, your account should be deleted based on the statements you made in the deleted posts. Again, I can't know the answer because I haven't seen the deleted posts. However, if they are, indeed, random deletions, then I can base my opinion on the posts of yours that I have seen. In that case, I have already expressed my view that your posts should not suffer deletion. In fact, I cannot think of a single regular or semi-regular poster that I know of who does deserve deletion of their account or even deletions of their posts.

Hmmm jake has umm, shall we say a long record of past transgressions.
Heres an example: http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=26663

He and I had a history of butting heads... although he's been behaving recently. Dunno how much of it is self control or moderator action. Probably a little of both

[SpankyTheWhale]

Originally Posted by Tedminator";p=&quot

Hmmm jake has umm, shall we say a long record of past transgressions.
Heres an example: http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=26663

He and I had a history of butting heads... although he's been behaving recently. Dunno how much of it is self control or moderator action. Probably a little of both

Looks like I didn't see that one. It appears that you listed certain contradictions that in your view made him a bit of hypocrite as a matter of course, a standard operating procedure, and he lashed out at you with a heinous, completey unwarranted accusation. It was an accusation where even if it happened to be true in your case, he could not have known, nor have had any evidence for it, and it could only be considered an act of libel and slander.