Forum Moderation

[Andrew McHarg]

Have we really removed anything if a discussion on removing it (specifically) is left for all to see?

actually inaccurate. a whole thread was recently removed without warning and for a pretty poor excuse too.

The above doesn't suggest that I haven't/don't remove anything (even whole topics). It's a rhetorical question suggesting that leaving or allowing a discussion about the details of a removed post defeats the purpose of removing the post in the first place. Ironically, it could be even worse than if nothing was done to the original post, because it very publicly disects the details of it. Therefore, "excessive moderation" can often look so because posts discussing the details of an original deletion are also removed.

But I do want to dispel the belief of favouritism

Really? I would like to believe this, name the complainer then. Either privately or better still publicly, they are hiding behind anonymity that you afford them.

I find this pretty hypocritical of you, as your post named nobody yet obviously had a particular person in mind. I don't see any good in naming people who complain. In fact, I see good in keeping that information private, as it prevents them from becoming the target of any backlash. Besides, I don't see why it's particularly important whether you know who complained or not? How does that knowledge change anything for the better?

You seem to be easily influenced as you yourself stated that the post was not that far wrong, i think you said borderline. I fully agree with Davids post, well articulated and bluntly honest. Beware that over moderation will not encourage fair and honest debate.

A borderline case would be harder to judge one way or the other, don't you think? Therefore going one way, whether it the right way or not, doesn't make me easily influenced. If I felt something was just on the wrong side of borderline, and dealt with it, this would be the correct decision. Whether this was on the wrong side of borderline or not is a different debate. I accept that there might have been other better ways of dealing with this one rather than simply deleting it. Perhaps David's suggestion of moving it to another topic and having a discussion (argument?) on it would work. My concern was not that you questioned whether non-members should be allowed to post or not, this is a very valid question. My concern was it bringing into question the posting rights of a particular user (and in a way I felt was provocative), rather than non-members in general. This was both unfair and unneccessary, particularly given the contructive discussion and valuable contributions from lots of people, irrespective of their membership status.