[Jezebel]

	Originally Posted by followthehippos
	http://intjforum.com/showthread.php?...07#post2499272 I misread the reason for deletion. I thought it was stated that my post was deleted because his post was deleted by him. I remain unaware who deleted the post at hand (of the other person).

The post you responded to was deleted by an administrator for a rule #7 violation (excessively lurid).

[followthehippos]

Ok. Fair enough.

So, the reason a deleted post by a user is brought back is because it is pertinent to the conversation? What would necessitate a proper exclusion to this rule? Say, is there any reason I can provide in the deletion portion that would keep it deleted? Or should I expect in future situations my post will be restored without exception?

[Jezebel]

	Originally Posted by followthehippos
	Ok. Fair enough. So, the reason a deleted post by a user is brought back is because it is pertinent to the conversation? What would necessitate a proper exclusion to this rule? Say, is there any reason I can provide in the deletion portion that would keep it deleted? Or should I expect in future situations my post will be restored without exception?

It's only brought back because another member's post would have to be deleted if yours isn't restored. If you want to write a thoughtful multi-paragraph post then change your mind and delete the post 20 hours later, then we will respect your decision to remove the post and won't restore it as long as nobody else has responded to it. Once others have responded, it's a no-win situation because we either have to restore your post or delete another user's post. Our policy is to side with the user who had no fault in the post they were responding to being removed.

Exceptions to this are when the deleted post or responses contain rule violations, which might include borderline one-liner responses that provided little content anyway.

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by followthehippos
	I can only not edit that one post. I can edit any other post.

Posts may be edited or deleted for the 24 hours following their creation. After this window, users lose the ability to modify their own posts. I believe this was implemented to help prevent a case where somebody decides they want to erase their footprints, and in so doing create lots of continuity problems around the forum.

	Originally Posted by Sali
	I am always astounded at how seriously people take arguments and continuity on internet forums anyway. We should be able to change or remove whatever we need to due to privacy issues imo. Who really gives a damn about arguments at the expense of member safety?

Since this is a discussion forum, continuity is important. Fragmented/disjointed conversations are disorienting and difficult to follow, much less respond to in a meaningful way. It would be antithetical to the purpose of the forum to allow people to butcher threads at will.

As far as privacy is concerned, we do have ways to accommodate users who fear identity compromise. This is handled on a case by case basis though, and it is not compulsory. I think the bottom line in that department is "if you don't want it to be public information, don't post it on a public forum."

[Sali]

	Originally Posted by JTG
	Since this is a discussion forum, continuity is important. Fragmented/disjointed conversations are disorienting and difficult to follow, much less respond to in a meaningful way. It would be antithetical to the purpose of the forum to allow people to butcher threads at will.

Bullshit, if this is the case what is to stop people from butchering threads within the 24 hours allotted? That is typically about the length of time that threads are relevant anyway. I really doubt it would ruin any continuity anyway, I spent quite a bit of time on the world of warcraft forums which have far more members than a forum like this could ever hope to have. They allow unlimited editing and deleting and there seems to be no problems with continuity or whatnot, there are others as well, but that is the biggest one I can think of off hand. The truth of the matter is that forum admins spend so much time in this fantasy land of what could happen that they start chopping off the rights of their member base out of pure caution and fear. It is silly and unnecessary and creates an "us vs them" environment between members and mods/admins. That being said it is not my forum and the owner can run it however he or she pleases. Just thought I'd throw my 2c in the ring to think about. We all must do things in our own ways.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Sali
	I spent quite a bit of time on the world of warcraft forums which have far more members than a forum like this could ever hope to have. They allow

Discussion and debate of the kind that takes place on INTJf does not take place on that forum. Attempting it there is a great way to retrieve a flurry of TL;DR and 1/10 and trolol and reported and NO U et cetera, if not an instantaneous dropping from the index altogether. When looking at the way forums operate, you need to attend to the kind of forum you're dealing with if you want to make meaningful comparisons. They aren't all the same.

Also, the size of that forum has little or nothing to do with the merit of its configuration or policies even within its own format. Take that business with the RealID that they nearly implemented awhile back. The forum gleans its membership simply by being incorporated with a hugely popular videogame, which in turn is advertised and sold. Their practices are incorporation-oriented. There is no community to speak of there; at least, not in the sense that INTJf and forums of comparable format have communities. User affiliations are handled in game instead, not on the forum. WoW servers are the loci of their community. As blues themselves seem fond of observing, only a tiny fraction of their players use the forum at all. To contrast, forums like this one are not automated satellites of something else entirely.

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by Sali
	Bullshit, if this is the case what is to stop people from butchering threads within the 24 hours allotted?

Abuse of the edit/delete feature could result in infractions or potentially having editing priviledges revoked.

	Originally Posted by Sali
	It is silly and unnecessary and creates an "us vs them" environment between members and mods/admins.

I don't understand how this is so. Please explain?

I mean, it isn't like it's okay for the mods to edit our own posts after this limitation has expired. It's also not like we edit others' posts except when required to bring content in line with the forum rules, to which we are also subject, ourselves.

[Jezebel]

Bullshit, if this is the case what is to stop people from butchering threads within the 24 hours allotted? That is typically about the length of time that threads are relevant anyway. I really doubt it would ruin any continuity anyway, I spent quite a bit of time on the world of warcraft forums which have far more members than a forum like this could ever hope to have. They allow unlimited editing and deleting and there seems to be no problems with continuity or whatnot, there are others as well, but that is the biggest one I can think of off hand. The truth of the matter is that forum admins spend so much time in this fantasy land of what could happen that they start chopping off the rights of their member base out of pure caution and fear.

I implemented this policy because of problems I've seen on other forums. I've seen users with thousands of posts delete their entire post history when they decided they no longer wanted to participate on the forum. It can make threads incomprehensible and annoying to read. Old threads may not matter to you, but they're our primary source of search engine traffic and many other users, including myself, do enjoy reading old threads.

	That being said it is not my forum and the owner can run it however he or she pleases. Just thought I'd throw my 2c in the ring to think about. We all must do things in our own ways.

Indeed. There will be always people who aren't going to like how I run things no matter what policies I enact because everyone has their own ideas about how to do things. My policies are based on making this the kind of community I enjoy most.