A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[Don't Panic]

Does anyone else here have a strange feeling of arm-linked, banner-waving solidarity as we head towards the finish line of this legendary thread?

Well unfortunately I've only read the occasional post in it - so would anybody like to summarize it for me?

Shit happens.

[Robert_S]

maiforpeace, Do we really want to get into this? Yes, I guess we do...

For the record, I have been involved in acts of fudgepacking, but only with women and only as the packer, OK? What other people do is their own business, but it wouldn't come as a complete shocik to find that others are going to share their experiences on this thread that, to put it mildly, has taken some interesting twists and turns.

Since we're on the subject, some of us, myself included, have visited our good friend, Colin Oscopy. Fortunately, they give you some good drugs before they stick a TV camera up your ass.

You've never been topped by a hot woman with a prosthetic?

You don't know what you're missing.

[Fallible]

In response to the person/people who asked for evidence of post deletions at RatSkep, I don't have any. The claim was based on two things: hearsay and my own belief that RatSkep staff are running that forum the same way the RDF forum was run.

I don't remember post deletion being used as a purposeful moderation technique on Rational Skepticism, but I don't remember it on the Richard Dawkins Forums, either. A couple of my posts have been deleted from Rational Skepticism in thread splits, but they were posts that were made moot by the splits anyway. I don't know whether those deletions were purposeful or accidental, but I personally don't see it as part of the problem there.

And so it goes. Here is the truth - none of your posts were deleted. Posts are not deleted, precisely because of what happened at RD.net.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... ed#p381600

Rightly or wrongly (and there is debate as to which) the entire thread was removed.

And placed elsewhere. It was not deleted. You might feel that they're the same thing, however when something is removed rather than deleted it is never lost, and can be retrieved. This cannot happen when something is deleted - that's the difference. Warren Dew had zero posts deleted, and that thread was not deleted.

[Bella Fortuna]

Does anyone else here have a strange feeling of arm-linked, banner-waving solidarity as we head towards the finish line of this legendary thread?

Well unfortunately I've only read the occasional post in it - so would anybody like to summarize it for me?

Well..... there was a mummy forum and a daddy forum... and their relationship seems to have gotten a bit fucked up... heated words were had... but in the end anal sex always smooths things over.

[Fallible]

In response to the person/people who asked for evidence of post deletions at RatSkep, I don't have any. The claim was based on two things: hearsay and my own belief that RatSkep staff are running that forum the same way the RDF forum was run.

I don't remember post deletion being used as a purposeful moderation technique on Rational Skepticism, but I don't remember it on the Richard Dawkins Forums, either. A couple of my posts have been deleted from Rational Skepticism in thread splits, but they were posts that were made moot by the splits anyway. I don't know whether those deletions were purposeful or accidental, but I personally don't see it as part of the problem there.

And so it goes. Here is the truth - none of your posts were deleted. Posts are not deleted, precisely because of what happened at RD.net.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... ed#p381600

Rightly or wrongly (and there is debate as to which) the entire thread was removed.

The current staff policy is to remove threads if the entire premise for the thread breaches the FUA. This does not happen very often.

The staff also remove individual posts from threads at times.

And that was posted in the official modnote format. Be prepared for a bit of backpedalling. Claiming that removal from public access is not the same as deletion will be the next logical step, but guess what? Functionally speaking, there is no difference between the two.

Except there is.

[Robert_S]

Does anyone else here have a strange feeling of arm-linked, banner-waving solidarity as we head towards the finish line of this legendary thread?

Well unfortunately I've only read the occasional post in it - so would anybody like to summarize it for me?

Well..... there was a mummy forum and a daddy forum... and their relationship seems to have gotten a bit fucked up... heated words were had... but in the end anal sex always smooths things over.

[Tigger]

In response to the person/people who asked for evidence of post deletions at RatSkep, I don't have any. The claim was based on two things: hearsay and my own belief that RatSkep staff are running that forum the same way the RDF forum was run.

I don't remember post deletion being used as a purposeful moderation technique on Rational Skepticism, but I don't remember it on the Richard Dawkins Forums, either. A couple of my posts have been deleted from Rational Skepticism in thread splits, but they were posts that were made moot by the splits anyway. I don't know whether those deletions were purposeful or accidental, but I personally don't see it as part of the problem there.

And so it goes. Here is the truth - none of your posts were deleted. Posts are not deleted, precisely because of what happened at RD.net.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... ed#p381600

Rightly or wrongly (and there is debate as to which) the entire thread was removed.

The current staff policy is to remove threads if the entire premise for the thread breaches the FUA. This does not happen very often.

The staff also remove individual posts from threads at times.

And that was posted in the official modnote format. Be prepared for a bit of backpedalling. Claiming that removal from public access is not the same as deletion will be the next logical step, but guess what? Functionally speaking, there is no difference between the two.

Except there is.

Yay! We have a "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!" subforum.

[LaMont Cranston]

Psychoserenity, To sum it up, this started our as a rather sincere critique of what the mods are doing over at ratskep. As we've gone along, a number of members of this forum have said they never want anything to do with any of us ever again and have left in a huff. (By the way, we are running out of huffs. Will somebody order some more?) We are now talking about fudgepacking. There, I think that gets you up to present time...

[kiki5711]

It's coming to an EEEENNNNNDDD!!! Nooooooo!!!!!

[maiforpeace]

*snip* And so it goes. Here is the truth - none of your posts were deleted. Posts are not deleted, precisely because of what happened at RD.net.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... ed#p381600

Rightly or wrongly (and there is debate as to which) the entire thread was removed.

The current staff policy is to remove threads if the entire premise for the thread breaches the FUA. This does not happen very often.

The staff also remove individual posts from threads at times.

And that was posted in the official modnote format. Be prepared for a bit of backpedalling. Claiming that removal from public access is not the same as deletion will be the next logical step, but guess what? Functionally speaking, there is no difference between the two.

Except there is.

If the only people who are ever privy to that removed thread are the moderators, then essentially it is the same as removing an entire thread, unless it's reinstated. Do you honestly believe it would ever reinstated? They would have to admit they made a mistake to do that.

[Robert_S]

Rightly or wrongly (and there is debate as to which) the entire thread was removed.

The current staff policy is to remove threads if the entire premise for the thread breaches the FUA. This does not happen very often.

The staff also remove individual posts from threads at times.

And that was posted in the official modnote format. Be prepared for a bit of backpedalling. Claiming that removal from public access is not the same as deletion will be the next logical step, but guess what? Functionally speaking, there is no difference between the two.

Except there is.

If the only people who are ever privy to that removed thread are the moderators, then essentially it is the same as removing an entire thread, unless it's reinstated. Do you honestly believe it would ever reinstated? They would have to admit they made a mistake to do that.

Has there ever been a case where this has happened, or has there ever been much of an outcry over a particular binned thread?

[Fallible]

If the only people who are ever privy to that removed thread are the moderators, then essentially it is the same as removing an entire thread, unless it's reinstated.

Warren Dew claimed erroneously that he has had posts deleted. He has in fact had zero posts deleted.

A removed post exists and can be reinstated. A deleted post does not exist and cannot be reinstated. These cows are very small. Those out there are far away.

Do you honestly believe it would ever reinstated?

That's a separate issue, and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether deleting and removing are the same.

Yes, if there was enough of a case. But then I am actually privy to what goes on, and not just repeating stuff I happened to have read some people saying on teh interwebz and decided is probably true.

. They would have to admit they made a mistake to do that.

Amagad, amagad! Teh eebil RatSkep modz!!1 Warnings have been rescinded when it has been agreed that a mistake had been made. Some time ago, one of our mods suffered a momentary lapse and requested someone go forth and multiply. Not that it was a patch on your own Pappa's little shit-squirt there, but nevertheless in double quick time, the moderator in question issued a public apology. Not something I've seen happen here yet, by the way. But then I guess he would have to admit he made a mistake to do that. A couple of months back, I accidentally clicked 'edit' rather than 'quote' when I replied to a member's post and managed to delete half of it. That was the only thing I ever deleted, and that was an accident. Guess what? I typed a big red public apology.

Any more little factoids picked up because someone with a cob on typed some stuff on teh interwebz which you would like addressed with facts, or will that be all?

Oh and LaMont, I know why you were banned from RatSkep. Yes...

The Fallible knows...

[Tigger]

If the only people who are ever privy to that removed thread are the moderators, then essentially it is the same as removing an entire thread, unless it's reinstated.

Warren Dew claimed erroneously that he has had posts deleted. He has in fact had zero posts deleted.

A removed post exists and can be reinstated. A deleted post does not exist and cannot be reinstated. These cows are very small. Those out there are far away.

Do you honestly believe it would ever reinstated?

That's a separate issue, and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether deleting and removing are the same.

Yes, if there was enough of a case. But then I am actually privy to what goes on, and not just repeating stuff I happened to have read some people saying on teh interwebz and decided is probably true.

. They would have to admit they made a mistake to do that.

Amagad, amagad! Teh eebil RatSkep modz!!1 Warnings have been rescinded when it has been agreed that a mistake had been made. Some time ago, one of our mods suffered a momentary lapse and requested someone go forth and multiply. Not that it was a patch on your own Pappa's little shit-squirt there, but nevertheless in double quick time, the moderator in question issued a public apology. Not something I've seen happen here yet, by the way. But then I guess he would have to admit he made a mistake to do that. A couple of months back, I accidentally clicked 'edit' rather than 'quote' when I replied to a member's post and managed to delete half of it. That was the only thing I ever deleted, and that was an accident. Guess what? I typed a big red public apology.

Any more little factoids picked up because someone with a cob on typed some stuff on teh interwebz which you would like addressed with facts, or will that be all?

Oh and LaMont, I know why you were banned from RatSkep. Yes...

The Fallible knows...

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[Fallible]

Oh well we're all fucked then.

[kiki5711]

on no, it's switching to a fern langwich