Why was my posting deleted?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reacted to a post on SH in the Rafale thread and got banned from the thread...
So, reciprocally, in the SH there can´t be poster reacting to a news post that would involve another airframe?!
Tell me it doesn't look like unsane when everybody is speaking about systems of systems and complementary capabilities in modern warfare...

At the end, not withstanding language warnings for quoting inappropriate words authored by other users, inappropriately addressing a member or myself to raise awareness on the offence (and noting that those individuals did not get apparently a warning for things as derogatory as crude misogynistic language or vulgarity), I have been banned on 2 different threads that bear my contribution, rather positively I would think for incomprehensible things.

X-37: raised awareness about the lack of fundamentals of a members lecturing all other and self-appropriating afterward the rightful conclusions of others (I think that this stands at the base of a useful forum; rigor, crosschecking and intellectual honesty (if not, modesty)).
Rafale: suggested that refueling test b/w two platforms could be the precursor of an acquisition of a complementary airframe, the Growler.

I don´t know in which book this could stand for such a brutal moderation, in effect depriving a user the right to participate to a discussion on rather arbitrary grounds.

Note:
User´s posts are contributions and as such can not be appropriated by what is in effect the result of a thread ban.

Hence, I would gently require the entirety of my posts in those thread to be made available for retrieval under an appropriate format, such as pdf or Word doc, in a the next days that I can dispose of them my right own way.

[As I am not able to participate in those threads, a sanction that has legality under no laws known to rightful men, exclusion can not be the justification for unlawful appropriation or the eventual destruction of IP] ''

As a personal opinion, I think you guys moderating this forum are taking the wrong turns increasingly more often with frequent evidences pilling up, as reported by members, of brutal reprimands that are felt unfairly or are increasingly hard to make senses.
As expressed earlier, you have no legal rights to orient the contend of a discussion according to your own preference if you do not mention it priorly. You have to make clear and unambiguous that the discussion is to be moderated and can´t temper afterward the content of an user or deleting their post (sort of things some of your moderators have done unashamedly)

Here, let´s take the example of the Rafale News thread, reacting to a news report directly by combining two related events to draw a single supposition and illustrate it with some detailed explanation is simply called reacting to a report. This is news. That´s what news are made from: events and explanatory discussions.
Nobody has shot an anchor suggesting that the incoming depression on a weather chart could bring hails...
 
May I please ask how was my last post in the The year in clean energy: Wind, solar and batteries grow despite economic challenges thread, regarding a news article on the effect the discovery of kill switches in Chinese made solar power systems is going to have on the UK's renewable energy efforts, was off topic?
 
Grey Havoc said:
May I please ask how was my last post in the The year in clean energy: Wind, solar and batteries grow despite economic challenges thread, regarding a news article on the effect the discovery of kill switches in Chinese made solar power systems is going to have on the UK's renewable energy efforts, was off topic?
Click to expand...
The theme of the topic is supposed to be about the growth of clean energy. The article you posted - with the headline "The West’s next mass blackouts might be ‘made in China’" - though seems to be more about fear mongering (dare I say tending towards "Conspiracy theory" territory) about China planning to turn off the technology (solar panels in this case) and thus distracts from the theme. I will give it to you that that may not have been your intent and if you had added in some appropriate commentary to explain such it might have helped. However when just seeing the article and having to deal with the possibility of posts derailing threads (an all too common occurrence these days), sometimes the easy action is to nip issues in the bud.
 
Grey Havoc said:
May I please ask how was my last post in the The year in clean energy: Wind, solar and batteries grow despite economic challenges thread, regarding a news article on the effect the discovery of kill switches in Chinese made solar power systems is going to have on the UK's renewable energy efforts, was off topic?
Click to expand...
As with practically EVERY POST YOU MAKE you broke forum rules and posted a link with no description or context.

With no context and a link that seemed to veer towards conspiracy, it was removed by a moderator.
 
TomcatViP said:
Reacted to a post on SH in the Rafale thread and got banned from the thread...
So, reciprocally, in the SH there can´t be poster reacting to a news post that would involve another airframe?!
Tell me it doesn't look like unsane when everybody is speaking about systems of systems and complementary capabilities in modern warfare...
[...]
At the end, not withstanding language warnings for quoting inappropriate words authored by other users, inappropriately addressing a member or myself to raise awareness on the offence (and noting that those individuals did not get apparently a warning for things as derogatory as crude misogynistic language or vulgarity), I have been banned on 2 different threads that bear my contribution, rather positively I would think for incomprehensible things.

X-37: raised awareness about the lack of fundamentals of a members lecturing all other and self-appropriating afterward the rightful conclusions of others (I think that this stands at the base of a useful forum; rigor, crosschecking and intellectual honesty (if not, modesty)).
Rafale: suggested that refueling test b/w two platforms could be the precursor of an acquisition of a complementary airframe, the Growler.

I don´t know in which book this could stand for such a brutal moderation, in effect depriving a user the right to participate to a discussion on rather arbitrary grounds.
Click to expand...
I'm not a big fan of individual thread bans. However, you have proven incapable of self-moderation on specific threads.

On the X-37 topic you were warned about breaking forum rules on personal attacks and continued to post your opinions regardless. Ignoring moderation attempts is pretty much grounds for banning. Would you rather a global post ban?

I'll have a look at the Rafale topic. Posting off topic is not grounds for any ban, though the posts may be moved elsewhere or deleted. Repeatedly derailing a topic with constant offtopic posts is trolling, which breaks forum rules, however.

My preferred solution for users who repeatedly post content that breaks forum rules is post moderation applied until it seems that the user has mastered self-control enough to be trusted with posting without admin supervision.
 
So, with respect to Rafale topic, a user posted about

The tanker qualification partnership paves the way for an extended reach and enhanced interoperability for allied airpower, says the U.S. Navy.
The U.S. Navy’s Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) announced that testing is in progress to improve interoperability with allies by allowing the French-made Rafale to refuel the F/A-18 family of jets.
Click to expand...
you speculated that this could be a precursor to France buying EF-18 Growlers, based on nothing in the original article.

This is part of a repeated pattern of anti-European and pro-Boeing posts made across multiple topics for many years, and has very little to do with Rafale, as per the topic.

The bans were not permanent, but they were longer than I would have personally implemented - the point of a topic ban is cooling off, not permanent blocking.

I have removed the topic bans, on the understanding you will try to adhere to the rules when posting.
 
hi everyone,
if you're going to ask why your post is deleted, it would help a lot to remind mods, which post/thread.
There are only a dozen staff and hundreds of threads.
 
Usually when a post is deleted, you'll get an automated message telling you which post.
 
That is true, it only indicates the topic, not the specific post. The problem is, even if it gave you the link to the post, you wouldn't be able to see the post anyway, because it's (soft) deleted. Not sure how that can be fixed, really.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
That is true, it only indicates the topic, not the specific post. The problem is, even if it gave you the link to the post, you wouldn't be able to see the post anyway, because it's (soft) deleted. Not sure how that can be fixed, really.
Click to expand...
Screenshot of deleted post with the notification.
 
Then why not just quote the censored post in the notification, instead of a screenshot? Wouldn't it be simpler?
 
I've had posts deleted because "the tweet or link you posted has been deleted," which means the post I made is just wasted space. Fair enough. But I've also had "your post was deleted because it was political, or mean, or I didn't like the humor, or, and I shit you not, 'knock it off'," but if I don't know what the post was (I don't memorize everything I post), I don't know what I said that made the moderator cry, pearl clutch, gasp in horror, recoil in shock or whatever. And without that knowledge, I cannot learn how to be more accommodating to tender sensibilities.
 
please, there was nothing misleading about what I wrote. I did not say it gives you a link to the post, but that an automated message will tell you that the post was deleted.

certain members need to understand that most of the time, mods remove or edit posts due to reports from other members, and often the reports are due to some kind of rule violation.

When posts are removed, some people need to stop taking it personally.
 
Orionblamblam said:
I've had posts deleted because "the tweet or link you posted has been deleted," which means the post I made is just wasted space. Fair enough.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly a bit surprised that there's no rule stating that tweets/links must be quoted separately in case the tweet/site disapears.

Whilst obviously not everything can be easily transfered (videos in the tweets, for example) or legally fully copied (the site rules are somewhat ambiguous as far as text from news/research articles, blogs and so on goes, so I'd probably default to SpaceBattles "do not post more than 50% of the total article, or 500 words, whichever is shorter.") it does seem like a rather obvious way to preserve relevant information for future use.
 
helmutkohl said:
please, there was nothing misleading about what I wrote. I did not say it gives you a link to the post, but that an automated message will tell you that the post was deleted.
Click to expand...

“Usually when a post is deleted, you'll get an automated message telling you which post.“

The message tells you that a post was deleted. It tells you in which thread, but it does not tell you the specific post or what it said.
Also would be interesting to know if the deletion was by member complaint or solely moderator decision.
 
Members need to appreciate that moderators are doing this role as volunteers and also have lives. They also wish to enjoy the forum themselves and are not just sitting around looking for posts to delete. Please also understand that there is not a lot of space to write long explanations of which posts are deleted and why. To elaborate, when a post is deleted, a moderator is presented the following window:

Image 5-6-2025 at 5.15 am.jpeg
It does not provide space for more than a few words or short sentence at most. Therefore, giving longwinded explanations of which particular post and why and going into a multitude of other things people are asking for here is simply impractical. Moreover, often posts are deleted in batches (especially when two or more members are simply having a fight) so it becomes even more impractical. Finally, many posts are deleted for reasons that should be obvious if people cared to read the rules and not act like children.
 
LightningFan1959 said:
I'm honestly a bit surprised that there's no rule stating that tweets/links must be quoted separately in case the tweet/site disapears.

Whilst obviously not everything can be easily transfered (videos in the tweets, for example) or legally fully copied (the site rules are somewhat ambiguous as far as text from news/research articles, blogs and so on goes, so I'd probably default to SpaceBattles "do not post more than 50% of the total article, or 500 words, whichever is shorter.") it does seem like a rather obvious way to preserve relevant information for future use.
Click to expand...

There is, at least, an unwritten* rule: if you provide a link to an outside source, provide enough of a text summary that forum members know what they will read/see there.

* as far as I know
 
starviking said:
There is, at least, an unwritten* rule: if you provide a link to an outside source, provide enough of a text summary that forum members know what they will read/see there.

* as far as I know
Click to expand...
It is written:

  • When posting links to other sites, you must post at least a brief description of what can be found at the link and also note if it is paywalled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom