Deleting posts or threads on the BOI

In short, NOT going to happen. So don't bother sending me emails or private messages requesting or demanding that it be done. Just because you got your ass in a crack a while back and it is affecting you now isn't my problem. You made your decisions, they got documented here, and you have to live with you own choices that you made then.

Now there have been, are, and will be deletions that are because of rule violations, duplicates, etc., but they are few and far between, and only done as strictly necessary. But deletions because YOU want it so, are not going to happen, whether you made those posts or someone else did.

Please consider anything you post on the BOI, or what someone posts about you as being PERMANENT.

Say amen. And that amen includes my own moronic posts that have resulted in my own infractions over the years.

Originally Posted by LauraB

Say amen. And that amen includes my own moronic posts that have resulted in my own infractions over the years.

me to. We gotta take responsibility for our own actions and accept the consequences.

Not to completely raise a dead topic, but it is dead on to what I have to ask.

In the BOI thread, http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=538607

Post where deleted by the admins and mods.

Can I politely ask why?

I was under the impression that what happens in the BOI stays there forever. I think that if a person does something that deserves a ban, it needs to be shown for the public to be informed. Chris Kennards behavior needs to be shown so everyone can get a full idea of his total behavior. I am not saying the ban was unwarranted. I am not saying that the deletion was needed. I just don't understand why on a permanent forum, it was.

If I am wrong, sorry. Just trying to fill in the logic gap.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Now there have been, are, and will be deletions that are because of rule violations

Dan I believe that ban bypasses are rule violations, as are those who post without valid credentials. BTW I am not sure at all that the deleted posts were authored by Chris.

Originally Posted by CwnAnnwn

Chris Kennards behavior needs to be shown so everyone can get a full idea of his total behavior.

If you're referring to the troll posts from the new accounts that suddenly popped up, I think it ended being someone else who was responsible, not Chris.

Not sure about exactly what I think should be done on those situations. I do like the idea of the permanency that's supposed to be a part of the BOI; but such posts don't really have anything to do with the topic of the thread. I'd probably be content with having the posts removed, as long as the person who made them was clearly, publicly identified.

We take the basic policy of No Editing on the BOI very seriously...but, as stated above, there are times that it is deemed both appropriate and necessary. Full names are required on the BOI, and any post known to be using a false or inaccurate name is in violation of that rule. Such posts are subject to infractions and removal; though, under ordinary circumstances, a member would be given ample opportunity to remedy that situation. If those opportunities are ignored, the content of those posts may be removed - anybody not willing to comply with the full name rule is not welcome to post. (There is a legal factor there that I won't attempt to explain.) When somebody creates accounts using false names, for the sole purpose of lashing out and being disruptive, those accounts are banned & the content of the posts are removed. In the thread you linked, the accounts were registered using inaccurate names, the sole intent was disruption, and they were removed accordingly.
Our approach is a bit unusual, in that such posts are not simply deleted so they vanish without a trace.

Another issue is that, often in those cases, the party making the posts has been recently banned...so, in addition to the other rule violations, they are creating those accounts in order to bypass that ban. If they were welcome to post, they would not have been banned...allowing them to simply continue, in violation of multiple rule violations doesn't make sense. Leaving such posts intact defeats the purpose of banning them in the first place. In this case, as I mentioned in the thread, I don't believe that it was the banned member making the posts - but the person was using fake names in order for his words to not be associated with him. That doesn't work here..had he shown ownership of his words by posting under his existing account, (with his name attached) the content would not have been removed. That doesn't mean he could have posted with impunity, of course - just that there would have been no reason for us to edit those posts.

Originally Posted by Fangthane

...as long as the person who made them was clearly, publicly identified.

While I may be confident in my opinion of who that person was, I have to admit that the connections I made were not 100% conclusive. Had I chosen to simply act on my opinion, a post would have been made explaining that ban. Due to the nature of the connections, I -instead- made my case in the moderator forum & requested input/approval. The lack of fully conclusive evidence was a sticking point...as such, neither banning or publicly identifying the person seem appropriate.

Thank you. I don't know what happened. Just found it odd. I did not know. And I felt the only way to get the answers was to ask.

You are welcome, Dan.
Never hesitate to ask questions.