Thread disappeared?

[David Mack]

11 minutes ago, Jerra said:

It would be nice and hopefully helpful if we were eventually told why action had been taken other than "somebody complained".   I sincerely trust a thread isn't terminated/locked/hidden etc merely on the word of one person censoring the forum by complaining.

I think it is well established that, following a complaint, a moderator will review the post/thread in question and decide whether or not to hide it. There is no automatic hiding just because a single complaint has been received. Sometimes an individual moderator makes that decision, at other times there is behind the scenes discussion between mods before action is taken. Sometimes mods take a thread offline while offending posts are removed, with the cleaned-up thread then being reinstated.

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

I think it is well established that, following a complaint, a moderator will review the post/thread in question and decide whether or not to hide it. There is no automatic hiding just because a single complaint has been received. Sometimes an individual moderator makes that decision, at other times there is behind the scenes discussion between mods before action is taken. Sometimes mods take a thread offline while offending posts are removed, with the cleaned-up thread then being reinstated.

I am aware of that, however there have been cases recently where I can't believe there has been more than a single person complaining.   If this is the case one person (no matter who it was) is censoring the thread.   The mods clearly hadn't noticed anything amiss otherwise it wouldn't rely on a complaint they would do what they often do and post a warning on the htread saying things were getting out of hand.

[tree monkey]

2 hours ago, Loddon said:

 

 

 

[David Mack]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The mods clearly hadn't noticed anything amiss otherwise it wouldn't rely on a complaint they would do what they often do and post a warning on the htread saying things were getting out of hand.

The mods are volunteers, and aren't on here full time scrutinising content as it appears. It is quite possible that someone else spots dodgy content first and reports it. It is then up to a mod to decide how to respond. Nobody who is not a mod has the ability to 'censor the thread'.

[Chris Lowe]

4 hours ago, MtB said:

Bad though all that may be, none of it has anything to do with "political correctness" as a principle applied by the loonie left. Or any political persuasion in fact. 

Some years ago at a meeting I particularly lked the new politically correct name gieven to us for the humble window.

They are now Environmental Awareness Panels.

[tree monkey]

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I am aware of that, however there have been cases recently where I can't believe there has been more than a single person complaining.   If this is the case one person (no matter who it was) is censoring the thread.   The mods clearly hadn't noticed anything amiss otherwise it wouldn't rely on a complaint they would do what they often do and post a warning on the htread saying things were getting out of hand.

Apparently it's a tennant of "free speech" to only allow selected free speech, at least according to a particular poster

[Chris Lowe]

Just now, David Mack said:

The mods are volunteers, and aren't on here full time scrutinising content as it appears. It is quite possible that someone else spots dodgy content first and reports it. It is then up to a mod to decide how to respond. Nobody who is not a mod has the ability to 'censor the thread'.

Exactly how we work David as personnaly uness I really have to I never read the political threads.

[matty40s]

5 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Apparently it's a tennant of "free speech" to only allow selected free speech, at least according to a particular poster

I think I Musk have heard this somewhere else too..

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The mods are volunteers, and aren't on here full time scrutinising content as it appears. It is quite possible that someone else spots dodgy content first and reports it. It is then up to a mod to decide how to respond. Nobody who is not a mod has the ability to 'censor the thread'.

I am aware they are volunteers and they pop up making their own comments in many (most?) threads so will see what is going on.   I tend myself to not be too keen on the sort of content which breaches the rules, however there have been many occasions where threads have been "dealt with" where I have seen nothing objectionable and certainly not against the rules.

 

This gives the impression that in a number of cases a single person has complained about being "got at" rather than the rules being broken.

[GUMPY]

10 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

 

 

I was going to post that but I thought it may have sailed over many people's heads 🤭

[Chris Lowe]

10 minutes ago, Jerra said:

however there have been many occasions where threads have been "dealt with" where I have seen nothing objectionable and certainly not against the rules.

 

Jerra we do have one particular user who seems over sensitive to a lot of content that most of us Mods just count as normal banter, sometimes we have quite a few complaints in a day from just the one person.

I won't say who though as it wouldn't be fair.

[Arthur Marshall]

4 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Bad though all that may be, none of it has anything to do with "political correctness" as a principle applied by the loonie left. Or any political persuasion in fact. 

 

"Political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is a term used to describe language,^[1][2][3] policies,^[4] or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.^[5][6][7] "

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

 

 

 

And everything in wikipedia is true, like everything else on the net. Words mean what they mean, and that isn't actually a bad summing up of how I defined it.

 

However  I'm glad that you aren't offended, or feel that any members of society have been disadvantaged in any way by the examples I gave. I am sure relatives of NHS workers who died from Covid because of political incorrectness agree with you.

 

The way "political correctness" is generally used is as a slur on anyone who tries to counter socially nauseating behaviour, such as racism, sexual abuse, bribery, profiteering, etc. Those who use the term obviously approve of such behavior, plenty do. Now that most people recognise users of the term for what they are, the word "snowflake" is used instead for those who, as this thread shows, try to keep behaviour within socially acceptable limits and, in fact, according to rules theoretically accepted by everyone who uses this forum.

 

No-one is being silenced, bigotry can be expressed freely in the street or down the pub, and I'm sure there are plenty on here who do just that in their private lives. It just isn't acceptable in this particular chunk of the web.

 

Just saying.

[GUMPY]

29 minutes ago, buccaneer66 said:

 

I won't say who though as it wouldn't be fair.

 

Spoil sport 🤭

 

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

however there have been many occasions where threads have been "dealt with" where I have seen nothing objectionable and certainly not against the rules.

But unless you are on here full time, it is quite possible that between your visits, something objectionable is posted, another forum members sees it and reports it, and then a mod removes it. And all you see when you next visit the forum is the cleaned-up thread with nothing objectionable or against the rules. In many cases you will be completely unaware the relevant content was ever posted, in other cases you may see subsequent discussion (which has been allowed to remain visible) about the matter.

[Chris Lowe]

I removed an objectionable post earlier an all it's qouted copies.

[Alan de Enfield]

Didn't 'cleaned up' posts and threads used to say something like "edited by moderator because ..........."

Edited December 11, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[Jim Riley]

I'm still getting the wrong message. Thread still locked, as far as the links in new posts are concerned anyway. 

[MtB]

4 hours ago, tree monkey said:

Apparently it's a tennant of "free speech" to only allow selected free speech, at least according to a particular poster

 

Isn't that a sort of beer? 

 

Although I agree, not picking holes in others' posts is a tenet of good etiquette on here. 

 

🙂

 

 

 

[RichM]

On 11/12/2022 at 17:25, Jim Riley said:

I'm still getting the wrong message. Thread still locked, as far as the links in new posts are concerned anyway. 

 

I just tested it and this is what I see:


 

I don't think it's the "wrong message". It could be more specific, sure. However, the same message is applied in other scenarios. As such, if I were to change it then it would mislead users in other scenarios. 

 

If you got the "You need 10+ posts to see this" error then it's likely because you tried to access a topic in the Political & Current Affairs forum while not logged in. This will appear irrespective of whether or not the topic is hidden due to the way forum permissions are applied.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, RichM said:

 

I just tested it and this is what I see:


 

I don't think it's the "wrong message". It could be more specific, sure. However, the same message is applied in other scenarios. As such, if I were to change it then it would mislead users in other scenarios. 

 

I have seen exactly the same as Jim has said. Stating only members with a certain number of posts can view this post. The same/similar message you get if you inadvertantly try to view posts in the politics section when not logged in.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by M_JG

[Jim Riley]

9 minutes ago, RichM said:

 

I just tested it and this is what I see:


 

I don't think it's the "wrong message". It could be more specific, sure. However, the same message is applied in other scenarios. As such, if I were to change it then it would mislead users in other scenarios. 

 

If you got the "You need 10+ posts to see this" error then it's likely because you tried to access a topic in the Political & Current Affairs forum while not logged in. This will appear irrespective of whether or not the topic is hidden due to the way forum permissions are applied.

Nah! I'm logged in, now. I go to a link in post notifications that should take me to that thread. This is what pops up, now, live, really. 

[Guest]

Ditto.

 

 

[RichM]

Okay so a different error appears if you try and access it from a notification vs. trying to access it using the URL. The latter is what I tested before now.

 

I replicated what you did and got the same error as the one shown in your screenshot. I have removed that text and replaced it with a more generic message. Unfortunately if I try to be too helpful and make the messaging too specific, it will mislead users in other scenarios. Can't win really.

13 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

Nah! I'm logged in, now. I go to a link in post notifications that should take me to that thread. This is what pops up, now, live, really. 

 

[Jim Riley]

Just had a peek. That is a lot better, I would've understood, given the context . Have a virtual greenie. 

[Tracy D'arth]

My threads are never hidden, removed, or censored,

 

but stripped.