[M T]

Moving this to the relevant thread.

Quick question: When a person makes a libelous post about someone, does a moderator have the authority to simply delete it, or is it allowed to simply remain there because to point out that it is ridiculous would violate the politics rule? Just asking for a friend…

My personal threshold for deleting posts is very high and my preference is to remind people of the rules and hope that calms things down.  In my mind, the danger is not so much that a political post exists per se (whether I agree with it or not); I think at this point we know that people have very strong feelings about politicians, current and former.  The danger to me is that a post will elicit a strong reaction and we get a back and forth that hijacks the discussion.  If it really bothers you or worry that you or someone else will not be able to leave the statement unchallenged, I can delete the post (or the offending statement), but honestly since this discussion has moved on, there’s probably a greater risk of calling attention by deleting it.

Note, if one of the other mods with a lower threshold to delete posts does so that’s fine too; we’re all just volunteers trying to do our best

BC

I took the post that triggered this (i.e., the post 76lsjumb was referring to) to be a political post (at least the relevant sentence).  The guidelines above indicate "No political posts".  Had that post been a non-political libelous post, I would feel the same criteria should apply.

I am not a moderator and have no insight into the people managing this board.  However, I would suggest a different treatment.

1) If a post or portion thereof is found by the board management to be contrary to the guidelines, board management will take one of two actions.
    A) The post is immediately removed from being visible to non-moderators.  Action may be taken against the author (ban, warn, etc.)  The author could also plead his case as to why it (or an edited version) should be allowed.
  or B) The author (and any subsequent repliers) will be notified and asked to edit or delete their post to comply with the guidelines.  The original author may realize the problem and may willingly amend his post.  Responders who quote the original content will also be asked to edit or delete their post.

2) After the authors have had a chance to amend their posts, if the board management still feels a post is not within guidelines, then #1 will be applied again.  Specifically, board management may remove the post from public display.


BC's approach lets individuals take potshots.  If no one yells back at them, BC's approach allows the potshot to remain in the Cardboard forever.   If I don't like what was said and I want it taken down, BC's approach would encourage me to make a contentious reply so it would be taken down.

I suggest that removing a post be done to the entire post, even if only one sentence is outside the guidelines.

[M T]

Moving this to the relevant thread.

Quick question: When a person makes a libelous post about someone, does a moderator have the authority to simply delete it, or is it allowed to simply remain there because to point out that it is ridiculous would violate the politics rule? Just asking for a friend…

My personal threshold for deleting posts is very high and my preference is to remind people of the rules and hope that calms things down.  In my mind, the danger is not so much that a political post exists per se (whether I agree with it or not); I think at this point we know that people have very strong feelings about politicians, current and former.  The danger to me is that a post will elicit a strong reaction and we get a back and forth that hijacks the discussion.  If it really bothers you or worry that you or someone else will not be able to leave the statement unchallenged, I can delete the post (or the offending statement), but honestly since this discussion has moved on, there’s probably a greater risk of calling attention by deleting it.

Note, if one of the other mods with a lower threshold to delete posts does so that’s fine too; we’re all just volunteers trying to do our best

BC

I took the post that triggered this (i.e., the post 76lsjumb was referring to) to be a political post (at least the relevant sentence).  The guidelines above indicate "No political posts".  Had that post been a non-political libelous post, I would feel the same criteria should apply.

I am not a moderator and have no insight into the people managing this board.  However, I would suggest a different treatment.

1) If a post or portion thereof is found by the board management to be contrary to the guidelines, board management will take one of two actions.
    A) The post is immediately removed from being visible to non-moderators.  Action may be taken against the author (ban, warn, etc.)  The author could also plead his case as to why it (or an edited version) should be allowed.
  or B) The author (and any subsequent repliers) will be notified and asked to edit or delete their post to comply with the guidelines.  The original author may realize the problem and may willingly amend his post.  Responders who quote the original content will also be asked to edit or delete their post.

2) After the authors have had a chance to amend their posts, if the board management still feels a post is not within guidelines, then #1 will be applied again.  Specifically, board management may remove the post from public display.


BC's approach lets individuals take potshots.  If no one yells back at them, BC's approach allows the potshot to remain in the Cardboard forever.   If I don't like what was said and I want it taken down, BC's approach would encourage me to make a contentious reply so it would be taken down.

I suggest that removing a post be done to the entire post, even if only one sentence is outside the guidelines.