Oh please, she put it out in the open. She made the decision to make it public on this board. It’s one thing to remove it if there is an actual threat of some kind to the board, but other posters have been told in the past to live with what they post, at best getting a grudging lock if they ask nicely enough.
Hell, I’m sure I’m not the only one who remembered a poster a few years ago who was bragging about having an affair, when her username was simply a combination of her initials and surname, and was thus easily googled to find her real identity and that of her husband. She got a name change, but none of the posts/threads she made were disappeared out of consideration for “personal stuff that didn’t need to be out in the open”.
I’ve never seen such a clever, cutting reference to Orwell. Kudos. But seriously: what’s the argument that this was special treatment? It’s not a violation that always results in warnings.
As I already said, I would have vanished it had it been anyone, so nobody is getting “special treatment”.
That being said, different mods do different things. Had another mod gotten to it before me, they may have just locked it.
We’re not all the same and either instance gets the job done.
Not exactly. She did choose to post about it on this board, and that was probably a bad decision. Regardless of who made it public, it didn’t need to stay that way. The thread wasn’t removed because we didn’t want people to know OpalCat posted about some off-board issues - like that would work.
This is not the first thread that’s ever been hidden from view. We don’t do it often, but we do it from time to time when a poster asks (or we decide) that a thread reveals information that could put a user at risk or cause them problems, or that simply doesn’t need to be public. On occasion we’ve removed threads about personal problems, marital issues, legal issues, health issues, and things like that. It’s stuff that posters either decided they did not want to be shared on a message board, did not want to have connected to their user names or real names, or stuff that we felt was only going to cause problems for the SDMB and for that poster. This thread did fit into that category.
I’ve said this before, but we need to know what the rules are here. Really. That’s part of operating within a group.
Well, that’ll get deleted if it’s Wednesday night but on Friday mornings you’ll get three notes and then a warning before it gets moved to the Pit. That doesn’t work.
And what “job” are you talking about in “gets the job done”? If “either instance gets the job done”, why would you ever choose the more severe one? If you want discussion about this topic to stop, you could ask us to stop, lock the thread, suspend the participants, ban the participants, disappear the thread, come to my house and smash my computer or put a bullet through my head. Should I go lock my door or should I assume we’re all reasonable people who will react appropriately to a given set of circumstances?
I guess I’m confused by the “live with what you post” message that we all are expected to adhere to. Only spam gets disappeared. Everything else becomes part of our posting legacy, for good or ill. I can think of few times a post was redacted, and that was usually under extreme circumstances and when the poster pled their case.
No board war was being incited. In fact, most were saying she should bring to the other board, not the other way around.
ETA: Marley’s post wasn’t there before. Still, I’m not sure why this one gets disappeared when much worse meltdowns survive, not even locked.
But hardly the same job gets done. Surely you must see that. A locked thread allows others to see, read and then understand other threads that may reference the locked one. A disappeared thread just makes the mod(s) appear arbitrary and protective of some Dopers over others, and it can lead to more drama as those who missed it query those who saw it. It is not the way to make anything go away, not for curious, persistent Dopers.
I don’t post here much anymore, but when I did, the rule was ALWAYS “you post it, you’re stuck with it”–there was a huge debate about allowing posts to be edited at all for just one example.
As for the argument that it was personal and doesn’t need to be out in the open; that’s specious at best. The OP decided to make it public, twice. And if the over-sharing of personal info is a criteria, surely almost every post by this poster would then be disappeared–not that she is the only one to over-share (not by a long shot)? How on earth are these decisions arrived at? At the very least, IdleThoughts should not have thought idly, but passed her(his?) decision by some other mod.
Where is the shaking head in disbelief emoticon?
The latter is wrong, wrong, wrong. The culture of the SDMB for as long as I’ve been here, both as a mod and as a poster has been, “Don’t post anything you don’t want your mother to read.”
I believe you when you say you would have done it for anyone. It’s still wrong. Removal of threads and posts require extremely good reasons. Extremely good reasons.
I sincerly believe that you made a bad decision here. The correct decision, assuming that you would still have chosen to take action, would have been to lock the thread.
That’s absolutely true except that’s not at all what he said. He said he removed it because of the potential for board wars, and I agree that’s not the best reasoning, but I did think the thread should be removed.