| |
|
Collating some stuff on the topic:
Tom, in Moderating the Temple:
"Then there's the direct intervention stuff - delete posts / delete threads kind of moderation. In my opinion there are a number of occasions in which you should feel prepared to use these things, remembering of course that you have other moderators precisely to reign you in if you go too far.
...
You have to decide whether you need to delete people who are radically off-topic, remembering that it is your job to do the boring, slightly intrusive work that keeps the board feeling useful for other people."
From Possible Trolling:
Flowers: "Well, I'm quite happy to delete any posts that seem content free in any of the fora I moderate if other moderators are doing the same..."
Flyboy: "I've only been moving to delete the clearly obnoxious or entirely tangential posts by him, not everything he's posted."
Stoat: "My personal policy (as a mod, rather than as a poster) is, like Flyboy's, to delete 'em when they're bollocks in and of themselves"
Susan Weaving in Taste & Decency:
"The protocol for how harassingly offensive content is dealt with is reasonably clear (lock, delete, potentially ban the offender), but the border between what is offensive and what is distasteful is not, it seems to me, a clear one. "
grant, in Moderation Requests:
"I'm beginning to suspect the editorial delete is being underused, even though it's one thing that's built into the software & distributed system. Is it because too many delete requests are being vetoed? Or a feeling that delete requests would be vetoed?"
Weaving, again in Mod Requests: "If we don't want it on the board, don't we just delete it (it'll still be on the database if there is a legal issue)."
I see no mention anywhere of informing deletees here, but I may have missed something. |
|
|
