Deleting posts or threads on the BOI

[WebSlave]

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.

 

[LauraB]

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

 

[j_dunlavy]

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.

 

[CwnAnnwn]

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/forums/showthread.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.

 

[Lucille]

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.

 

[Fangthane]

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.

 

[hhmoore]

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.

 

[hhmoore]

...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.

 

[CwnAnnwn]

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.

 

[hhmoore]

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

 

[WebSlave]

Each instance of such cases will be decided on after some reflection concerning what action seems BEST to do at the time. There have been times in the past where a banned member would quickly create one or more fake registrations just so that he or she could throw some parting barbs, and in many of those cases it was painfully obvious who the person really was. In that sort of case, those posts may be left in place because they become instructive to the people reading them as to just what kind of personality they may be dealing with if they think about doing future business with that person. So that person actually provided evidence by their own hand that was felt worth retaining. Would we be doing anyone a real service by removing such evidence?

In this particular case, evidence appeared to point to someone other than Chris Kennard actually being behind the fake accounts and abusive postings. Which is why the accounts were actually retained, only banned, as they did contain some evidence that was felt to be worthwhile keeping in storage for possible future reference. The person strongly suspected of being responsible will be under a microscope for quite a while, and runs the risk of being publicly exposed for the sake of helping other members see a darker side of someone that they may entertain doing business with. They will earn their own thread in the Board of Inquiry if that comes to pass. And that record WILL be permanent. A lot depends on their future actions, so that ball is now in their court. Obviously we are not 100% certain, otherwise this would already be a done deal.

Anyway, what the original post in this thread was placed there for was for those cases where someone makes a complete ass of themselves and then comes to me even years later begging to have such evidence removed. Or their situation is that they actually were involved in a transaction or situation they are not proud of, and the evidence of such a transgression still exists on this site that comes to the public eye easily with a Google search. I have a good collection of such emails from people who find that such postings or actions they made in the past are now being viewed and considered by prospective employers and their past is definitely haunting them now. Apparently they feel that the past is passed and they have some right to have it buried from public view. Sorry, that is NOT going to happen. That is the statement I intended to make with this thread.

I am very sorry that such people felt that they had to act in the manner that they did, and I am sorry if their actions are now having a negative impact on their lives. But I didn't make that bed, they did. Nine times out of ten they likely also smacked myself or the moderators on the toes with the hammer while making their bed, and quite honestly, I really don't have much sympathy for their plight.

Be careful about what you make yourself out to be on the internet. You are very easy to find out about for anyone who makes even a modest effort. Being a bad guy or just an ass today may certainly come back to haunt you later on in life.