[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Brief notice: Section 5 of the ScienceForums.Net Forum Rules has been updated to more clearly describe the ownership and use of content on SFN. If you have any questions, send them my way.

[michel123456]

From Forum Rules:

Quote

ScienceForums.net staff may be required to edit, move, or delete certain content to comply with forum rules or applicable law, but will not delete posts or accounts on request except to comply with rules or law. (...)

Here you say that any post that does not comply with law will be deleted.

Quote

ScienceForums.net is based in the United Kingdom, and all posts must conform to the laws established there. Posts that violate United Kingdom law will be referred to the proper authority, regardless of the legal status of the post in the user's country if different from the United Kingdom.

Here you say that any post that does not comply with law will be referred to authority.

How will you refer something that has been deleted?

IMHO nothing must be deleted, but instead sent to the trash can, or maybe to another sewage plant containing posts reported to authorities hidden from all, except staff and author, and on special request, to authorities. The author should always have access to his own posts. Maybe should the author always been able to delete his own garbage.

[D H]

michel123456, on 22 January 2011 - 10:11 AM, said:

How will you refer something that has been deleted?

Simple, if you know how forum software works. Forum software distinguishes between soft and hard deletion. When something is "soft deleted", non-priviledged users (e.g., you, me, a web crawler) cannot see it.

[swansont]

michel123456, on 22 January 2011 - 10:11 AM, said:

IMHO nothing must be deleted, but instead sent to the trash can, or maybe to another sewage plant containing posts reported to authorities hidden from all, except staff and author, and on special request, to authorities. The author should always have access to his own posts. Maybe should the author always been able to delete his own garbage.

Granting the author the ability to delete has caused problems in the past, so that ability expires. (There's also the possibility that knowing you can't delete at will might make some posters think twice about some posts.) Basically, the flaw in your reasoning is that you are thinking from the perspective of a responsible participant. The staff is worried about those who are not.

[michel123456]

D H, on 22 January 2011 - 11:00 AM, said:

Simple, if you know how forum software works.

I don't.

swansont, on 22 January 2011 - 11:09 AM, said:

Granting the author the ability to delete has caused problems in the past, so that ability expires.

You have the experience, I don't. What kind of problems?
I think even in regular trial a prosecuted has the right to retract.

swansont, on 22 January 2011 - 11:09 AM, said:

(There's also the possibility that knowing you can't delete at will might make some posters think twice about some posts.)

Sure, it is a menace.

Quote

Basically, the flaw in your reasoning is that you are thinking from the perspective of a responsible participant.

Do I have to take that as a compliment?

Quote

The staff is worried about those who are not.

It is leveling from the bottom, isn't it? How many illegal posts have you reported to authorities from the beginning of this forum?

[swansont]

michel123456, on 22 January 2011 - 11:35 AM, said:

You have the experience, I don't. What kind of problems?
I think even in regular trial a prosecuted has the right to retract.

This isn't a trial, but you are free to retract anything you say. It's just that there will be a record of what you retracted. It will not be as if you never said it in the first place.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

michel123456, on 22 January 2011 - 10:11 AM, said:

From Forum Rules:

Here you say that any post that does not comply with law will be deleted.

Here you say that any post that does not comply with law will be referred to authority.

How will you refer something that has been deleted?

I don't think it implies that every illegal post will be deleted, just that illegality is one of several valid reasons to delete something.

michel123456, on 22 January 2011 - 10:11 AM, said:

IMHO nothing must be deleted, but instead sent to the trash can, or maybe to another sewage plant containing posts reported to authorities hidden from all, except staff and author, and on special request, to authorities. The author should always have access to his own posts. Maybe should the author always been able to delete his own garbage.

When we allow members to delete their own posts, someone invariably gets angry about something and deletes all 200 of their posts, leaving discussions completely screwed up.