Tribute to Spanish

[Masquerade]

I think anyone that says "lulz" should be banned, it's retarded.

 

[Paul71]

I would argue the opposite. If someone is banned, every single post that they made should be deleted. Nothing should remain.

The problem is this wont happen, because inevitably anyone with anything remotely interesting or useful to say gets banned, and to delete "content" provided by banned members would leave little of value. Even the best LULZ is generally associated with banned members.

Fantastic post! I totally agree with this logic, and not the twisted logic that is overlooked by so many, in so many areas and at so many levels.

 

[oiltanker]

spanish will be in spanish heaven to know there is a thread about him

 

[timsk]

I would argue the opposite. If someone is banned, every single post that they made should be deleted. Nothing should remain.

The problem is this wont happen, because inevitably anyone with anything remotely interesting or useful to say gets banned, and to delete "content" provided by banned members would leave little of value. Even the best LULZ is generally associated with banned members.

What amuses me most about all the site's detractors, conspiracy theorists and 'lulz artists' (if 'artist' is the right word), is that they conveniently overlook the site's guidelines when it suits them. If a member posts a good thread which everyone agrees is a good thread with quality content - it's hardly the fault of the site's moderators and admin' team if said member then transgresses the guidelines sufficiently badly to warrant being banned. It really is a case of 'damned if you do' and 'damned if you don't'. It's a tough gig being a moderator on T2W. They may not always get it right 100% of the time but, one thing is for sure, T2W couldn't function without them. They volunteer their free time and, on the whole, do an absolutely brilliant job. A job not made any easier by 'lulz artists' stirring brown sticky stuff just because they're bored on a Friday afternoon. All the 'usual suspects' on here really need to get a grip and surprise everyone by supporting the Mod's and posting something that's even faintly positive and constructive for a change. As arabianights pointed out earlier in the thread, the old 'Bash the Mod's & T2W Admin' record has been played to death - and it really wasn't up to much to start with.
Tim.

 

[zupcon]

If a member posts a good thread which everyone agrees is a good thread with quality content - it's hardly the fault of the site's moderators and admin' team if said member then transgresses the guidelines sufficiently badly to warrant being banned. Tim.

I agree entirely, but there is such a thing as integrity, and in this particular case, I think that its hard to justify retaining posts from members whose views are no longer in line with those of the sites administrators.

A reasonable compromise would be if the site agreed to remove content on request.
I appreciate that this probably causes additional work, and that some ex members might make such a request to cause inconvinience but until this agreement is in place, you wont get quality submissions, I know it, Sharky knows it, and to be brutally frank, if you where being honest with yourself you would also acknowledge that this is probably one of the major obstacles preventing you from succeeding in your role.

On another note, Im disapointed to note that you consider members informing others of potential problems that they experienced with a vendor as LULZ and of no benefit.

 

[timsk]

Fair play zupcon - you win.
I'm completely snookered by the sheer brilliance of your logic and, to continue to debate this issue with you, inevitably would result in me digging myself into an ever deeper hole. Thank you for enlightening me - and indeed all of us - with your giant pearls of wisdom.
Tim.

 

[Paul71]

What amuses me most about all the site's detractors, conspiracy theorists and 'lulz artists' (if 'artist' is the right word), is that they conveniently overlook the site's guidelines when it suits them. If a member posts a good thread which everyone agrees is a good thread with quality content - it's hardly the fault of the site's moderators and admin' team if said member then transgresses the guidelines sufficiently badly to warrant being banned. It really is a case of 'damned if you do' and 'damned if you don't'. It's a tough gig being a moderator on T2W. They may not always get it right 100% of the time but, one thing is for sure, T2W couldn't function without them. They volunteer their free time and, on the whole, do an absolutely brilliant job. A job not made any easier by 'lulz artists' stirring brown sticky stuff just because they're bored on a Friday afternoon. All the 'usual suspects' on here really need to get a grip and surprise everyone by supporting the Mod's and posting something that's even faintly positive and constructive for a change. As arabianights pointed out earlier in the thread, the old 'Bash the Mod's & T2W Admin' record has been played to death - and it really wasn't up to much to start with.
Tim.

Tim,

If i wanted all my posts and my membership removing what course of action should i take? I 've read about this kind of dispute in the past and have always wondered why it should cause such a big problem.

 

[Paul71]

Tim,

If i wanted all my posts and my membership removing what course of action should i take? I 've read about this kind of dispute in the past and have always wondered why it should cause such a big problem.

Can T2W admin/staff be deliberately awkward towards members requests.....just for thier own personal lulz?

 

[barjon]

paul/zupcon

The reason that posts are not deleted when members depart or are banned is twofold.

1. Removal of posts disjoints the threads in which they were made and often leaves those threads an unreadable mess. This particularly applies where such members have made significant contributions to those threads.

2. To delete all the posts then edit the threads so that they made readable sense, or to go part way and weed out the "insignificant" posts, would be a massive undertaking (you've got nearly 3000 post between you that would have to be looked at as well as the responses to those posts) and hardly worthwhile.

jon

 

[timsk]

Hi Paul,
Given my job title of 'Content Manager', it's not unreasonable for members to imagine that part of my role is to deal with issues such as the one you describe, on the very rare occasions that it crops up. However, it is in fact a Moderating function, as I can not delete posts in active threads. If you wanted to pursue this, you'd have to discuss it with Nika, T2W's Community Manager. (she's on leave at the moment, so you may not get a reply straight away.) Personally, I'm not in favour of it. A thread is a snapshot in time. When anyone posts to a thread then, presumably, they were happy with the site and happy to contribute to it at the time. To delete old posts in the future because a member has a change of heart is to meddle with history and adversely affects other members' contributions. For example, if you deleted your posts and the one above was removed, it then makes my post meaningless and I will have wasted the time and effort that went into writing it. Needless to say, I would not be happy. So, my view is, if a member no longer wishes to contribute to the site down the road, then that's fair enough. In this regard, the site mirrors life; we can exercise some control over our futures, but the past is history and can not be changed.
Tim.

 

[Paul71]

Thanks for the replies gents,

You can keep my posts as a gesture of good will, i can't make sense of them myself so if anybody else can good luck to them.

 

[shadowninja]

 

[donaldduke]

I think anyone that says "lulz" should be banned, it's retarded.

I think it was Arabian who first introduced the term to Trade2win.

A quick search confirms this to be true..

 

[arabianights]

I only did it for the lulz

 

[zupcon]

A thread is a snapshot in time. When anyone posts to a thread then, presumably, they were happy with the site and happy to contribute to it at the time. To delete old posts in the future because a member has a change of heart is to meddle with history and adversely affects other members' contributions.
Tim.

The only issue of course is that it may not be the member who had the change of heart but the site's management, and that puts a very different perspective on things.

Content is extremely valuable to the site, the site doesnt exist without it, the quality of the content is diminishing rapidly and in all likelihood the site will never regain quality contributors again. The problem is such magnitude that the sites administrators have appointed a content manager. The content is the sites primary assett and you therefore treat it as such, and that if I may say so is why you refuse to delete posts because its NOT in your interest.

Delete ALL of Mr Socco's posts and prove me wrong.

Paul asked the question how does a member get content removed and you ducked the question, suggesting he contacted a member of staff absent on long term maternity leave. As "content" manager surely "content" falls under your remit ? so what steps does an ex member need to take to remove content, and what legal rights does T2W have over that content ?

These are perfectly simple and reasonable questions for the content manager to answer.

 

[donaldduke]

The only issue of course is that it may not be the member who had the change of heart but the site's management, and that puts a very different perspective on things.

Content is extremely valuable to the site, the site doesnt exist without it, the quality of the content is diminishing rapidly and in all likelihood the site will never regain quality contributors again. The problem is such magnitude that the sites administrators have appointed a content manager. The content is the sites primary assett and you therefore treat it as such, and that if I may say so is why you refuse to delete posts because its NOT in your interest.

Delete ALL of Mr Socco's posts and prove me wrong.

Paul asked the question how does a member get content removed and you ducked the question, suggesting he contacted a member of staff absent on long term maternity leave. As "content" manager surely "content" falls under your remit ? so what steps does an ex member need to take to remove content, and what legal rights does T2W have over that content ?

These are perfectly simple and reasonable questions for the content manager to answer.

If a member is permanently banned it might make sense to remove all threads they originated.

However removing every post across countless other threads could ruin other threads.

For many years this site allowed members to modify all your their existing posts. I once edited a post i wrote a few years prior. At some point in the recent past edit was restricted to within 1 day after a post is created.

Im very careful about what i post now due to this restriction.

 

[barjon]

If a member is permanently banned it might make sense to remove all threads they originated.

However removing every post across countless other threads could ruin other threads.

For many years this site allowed members to modify all your their existing posts. I once edited a post i wrote a few years prior. At some point in the recent past edit was restricted to within 1 day after a post is created.

Im very careful about what i post now due to this restriction.

dd

yes, that restriction was introduced for the same reason that i mentioned above - http://www.trade2win.com/boards/foyer/81096-tribute-spanish-7.html#post996668 - after a prolific poster left T2W and deleted all his posts before he left. As you say, that ruined many threads and left them as so much gobbledegook.

cheers

jon

 

[zupcon]

a prolific poster left T2W and deleted all his posts before he left. As you say, that ruined many threads and left them as so much gobbledegook.

I appreciate that unitelligable threads are of little or no benefit, and that type of "thread vandalism" isnt appropriate behaviour, if a sensible alternative exists.

However, everyone seams to be ducking the quesions, a) what is the legal status of content provided by members with respect to copyright, and b) how would a member or ex member have content removed in a fashion that would not destroy threads.

Suggesting that the question is directed at an absent member of staff isnt particularly helpful is it ?

 

[timsk]

The only issue of course is that it may not be the member who had the change of heart but the site's management, and that puts a very different perspective on things.

Content is extremely valuable to the site, the site doesnt exist without it, the quality of the content is diminishing rapidly and in all likelihood the site will never regain quality contributors again. The problem is such magnitude that the sites administrators have appointed a content manager. The content is the sites primary assett and you therefore treat it as such, and that if I may say so is why you refuse to delete posts because its NOT in your interest.

Delete ALL of Mr Socco's posts and prove me wrong.

Paul asked the question how does a member get content removed and you ducked the question, suggesting he contacted a member of staff absent on long term maternity leave. As "content" manager surely "content" falls under your remit ? so what steps does an ex member need to take to remove content, and what legal rights does T2W have over that content ?

These are perfectly simple and reasonable questions for the content manager to answer.

zupcon,
I've ducked nothing. On the contrary, I've provided perfectly simple and reasonable answers to all the questions put to me. The problem is that you don't like the answers, which is a very different matter altogether. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but I'm afraid that's your problem, not mine. As a gesture of goodwill, I'll spell it out for you one more time. It is not part of my job function to go around deleting posts! That is not what I'm employed to do. Indeed, I expect Sharky would sack me for gross misuse of my forum permissions if I did. Trust me when I say that there are numerous posts by numerous members that I wouId love to delete, but it's not my job to do so. I and the FGs have permission to housekeep threads that have not been active for a year or more; that is the full extent of our authority to delete posts. Where necessary, deleting posts is part of the Moderators job function and not the Content Team. It's as simple as that. As for not answering Paul's question, both barjon and I have posted extremely clear and comprehensive answers. I'm really only bothering to post this for the benefit of other subscribers to the thread as you know all this perfectly well, having had it explained to you in detail via PM.
Tim.

 

[zupcon]

zupcon,
I've ducked nothing.

Apart from the answer to the following 2 questions that have ben asked by myself and at least one other member

a) What is the legal status of posts made by a member with respect to copyright ?

b) What steps does a current or ex member need to take to get posts removed ?

Suggesting contacting a member on leave (who given the sites track record on the appointment of community managers may not even return) is not an appropriate response. Its ducking the question.

You also claim to have provided a comprehensive anser by PM, do I have your permission to post that PM in public so members can determine if what you are saying is correct ?