Another admin pointed out to me that there's another case where a post might be removed, where the post isn't a problem and the member hasn't broken a rule. It's when the post is quoting a post that was deleted due to moderation. It's a matter of clean-up, since a response to a deleted post would just be weird in context.
Sometimes members send a contact to ask why their post was deleted, and we let them know that the problem wasn't their post. Though in most cases, they probably realise what happened when they read back and see that the post they responded to is gone.
Yes, that has happened to me.
I have also had posts edited because topics (such as political views) made an appearance during an attempt to fill the empty ether during a WW game.
On reflection, none of these were unmerited, and I felt that I had no cause for complaint.
Actually, I've been following this thread with interest, looking in on it daily, (and have made a point of reading it from the beginning) to see what has been discussed and how it is being dealt with.
Firstly, I'm very happy to see that such matters can openly be discussed on these fora, and, in the course of this thread, the MR public, and, even more so, the mods have made some points worth pondering.
While I can see that attempting to define - and track - trolling can be rather difficult, I also think that few people have difficulty with understanding when they have been personally insulted, or addressed offensively, or treated with contempt, (rather than someone merely taking issue - sometimes strongly - with an opinion they have posted).
Has the possibility of nuanced versions of time-outs been considered? Such as imposing a version of time-out which might be termed a troll-out, as distinct from a time-out, and which might appear as such when imposed?
Moreover, while I know full well that passions run high during election campaigns, or the actual election itself, I must say that I was stunned at the number of posters whom I would view as holding opinions which might mark them as being of a more liberal persuasion who appeared to have earned themselves time-outs on - or immediately after - the night of the presidential election in the US. Indeed, in their absence, I subsequently felt honour bound to wade into the various......discussions......on abortion, a topic I had studiously avoided on these fora for years given its potential for explosive and divisive and vicious debate.
I told myself that, of course, there was no political bias in the imposition of time-outs, and that those of a more liberal persuasion may well have become involved en masse in some political brawl that I missed entirely because of work and time differences. However, it did seem to me that many liberals were hors de combat for periods which ranged from a few hours to a few days, whereas those whom they (indeed, we, if I am completely honest) occasionally engage in full, frank, robust and meaningful exchanges of opinions remained in possession of the virtual battlefield. Perhaps it is just a matter of perception......
Nevertheless, I do think that a slightly more forceful tone might be taken by mods towards those who post gratuitously nasty, and offensive posts, and seek to insult the individual rather than addressing the argument (yes, trolling, in other words; unfortunately, I don't have an example to hand; it's the old cliché, we know them when we see them.....)
