--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: <snip> > As for people claiming not to know that deleting a post > doesn't affect their Post Count, given the number of > times the Post Count mechanism has been explained on this > forum, and how recently, I find it difficult to > comprehend that level of stupidity. If you sent it, it's > counted.
In fact, before July 29, deletions *did* affect the Post Count--not what the software registered, but the count the moderators considered when deciding whether someone had overposted. It's the latter I was referring to, of course, not the former. This changed on July 29, when Rick ruled that deletions would no longer be considered to have reduced the number of posts a person had made that week. I had to go back just now and do a search for Rick's post to see what the ruling had been, because since then it has *not* been explained or referred to until now, contrary to Barry's claim. Barry also pretends to have forgotten why Rick had to make that ruling: Because Vaj had deliberately, flagrantly abused the previous ruling, in which deletions were not counted, as a challenge to the moderators. He intentionally overposted, then went back and made random deletions of his previous posts to keep his effective count at 50. Previously there had been a certain amount of flexibility--including but not limited to not counting deletions--in which Alex or Rick could excuse or not excuse a 50-plus count depending on the situation. But Alex (mostly) and Rick (occasionally) were repeatedly subjected to abusive tirades from other posters--often including Barry--concerning the perceived fairness or unfairness of those decisions. Vaj's nose-thumbing stunt was the last straw. Alex threatened to quit as moderator, and Rick made an executive decision, in post #284483, which I reproduce below to document what happened and refute Barry's knowingly false claims: ----- From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex Stanley Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 9:38 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count [Alex wrote:] > Earlier this evening, Vaj deleted seven posts that he made in the > previous few days. This struck me as a bit suspicious, so I > tracked down this evening's deleted posts by looking on the FFL > website for the time that neighboring posts were made and then > finding his posts in that time slot in my email feed. As far as I > can tell, he was just doing random deletions. None of them were > cases of deleting duplicates or editing by deleting and > reposting. There were also a couple random deletions earlier in > the week and one post, delete, repost. > > My suspicion is that Vaj intentionally overposted this evening to > see how the posting limit would be enforced. Well, here's the > deal: it's a matter of intent. Judy's situation was an innocent > mistake, and her deletions were the only way she could attempt to > rectify it. Barry could have posted 51 last week, and I'd have > let it slide because I saw that he did a post, delete, repost. > Vaj's deletions, however, appear to me to be nothing more than > random deletions in order to get around the posting limit, and > that's not gonna fly. > > I will also add that having to dig through the various databases > to find the deletions and see why they were made was a > significant chunk of time that I'd much rather have spent doing > something else. Right now I am very annoyed by all this, and it's > all a bunch of posting limit bullshit that I didn't want to have > to deal with in the first place. When Rick asked me to be a > moderator, it was just going to be handling subscriptions, > keeping an eye on uploads, and dealing with spammers. Now, I'm in > charge of bullshit that I absolutely hate, and I've had it up to > fucking HERE with all of it. At this point, the posting limit > either needs to go or Rick needs to get a new moderator. I'm done > dealing with this. [Rick wrote:] OK. New rule, as Bill Maher would say. From now on, anyone who exceeds the 50 post limit is out for a week, regardless of deletions and any other circumstances. I'll let Judy and Vaj stay this time, since her mistake was innocent and you can't be convicted of violating laws that hadn't been passed when you violated them. Vaj's behavior apparently was less innocent, but as he said, he's been bumped in the past for making the same mistake Judy just made. So let's all act our chronological age. I'm in the midst of switching WordPress themes on BatGap. ----- (In fact, Rick is mistaken above; Vaj was never "bumped in the past for making the same mistake" I had just made.) "Regardless of deletions" is the only "explanation" of how the status of deletions changed with the new ruling. Again, that point has *not* been repeated on FFL since then, until Alex reiterated it in response to my query about Robin's deletion of a previous post and posting of an amended version. I'd forgotten it, and I very strongly suspect Robin was never aware of it. Whether Robin knew is a moot point since there's no longer any flexibility in the rule. But the status of deletions is nowhere mentioned on FFL's Home page or in the FFL Guidelines. Seems to me, especially considering the ruckuses that erupt whenever someone overposts, that the post-count rules, including the status of deletions, need to be posted to the group on a regular basis. New people are constantly joining the group, and they have no way of knowing that deleted posts are now being counted. As I said earlier to Alex, I also think there should be a rule that there are to be no comments when somebody overposts. Typically the mean people on FFL--most prominently Sal, but obviously also including Barry and others--promptly attack and mock the overposter, knowing that person will not be able to respond. And since attacks on the moderators and flagrant abuse of the post-count rules have made it necessary for Rick to make those rules inflexible, there's no longer any basis for arguing about a moderator's decision. After Rick had laid down the new rule, Alex wrote: "IMO, the posting limits are there to mollycoddle whiners who can't be bothered to use appropriate filtering." I agree. The posting limits were silly and unnecessary in the first place; they've crossed over into utter absurdity now that a single post over 50, even if made by accident, results in a poster being banned for a week. That doesn't even have anything to do with the original reason for the posting limits. In the FFL Guidelines, Rick writes of the posting limits: "Most participants feel this policy has greatly enhanced the quality of the forum." Whether it's true that "most participants" feel this or not, obviously posters exceeding the 50-post limit by a post or two every now and then wouldn't detract from the quality of the forum. What *does* detract from the quality of the forum are the abusive rants and tirades from the whiners and the mean people whenever someone goes over the limit. If overposters are to be inflexibly "censored" by having their posting privileges taken away, let's also "censor" comments from the peanut gallery if the whiners and mean people are unable to act their chronological age.
