My proposal to forum administration

[dillpicklechips]

And I think I have already made it pretty clear (that's basically the reason why I created this thread), but I can't agree with your point that "forum doesn't owe you anything for that". As it seems to me, you don't fully understand what this forum (or just any such forum) is essentially about (despite you being a global moderator). The forum is made up of you, me, and other posters (this is what the word itself means), so it can't possibly be the way you look at it, as if it owed nothing to its members (read forum owes everything to its members). Forum members are what a forum consists of, and that cannot be ignored. Hope this helps better understand my point

No, it doesn't have anything to do with my point at all and it seems you don't know what the forum is about. The forum is to discuss bitcoin. The fact that you can get paid to do so is a privilege and a bonus you should be grateful for, but the forum doesn't owe you a living. You're complaining about something petty because you're upset that you've lost out on a few dollars and that's all this is about

This doesn't change anything

What would it change if I weren't enrolled in a signature campaign? Would it take anything from my argument? I guess I could have said absolutely the same words. Nevertheless, even if we completely discard this point, the forum has become a small Bitcoin economy in and of itself, this is the reality, and you have to face it and deal with that appropriately. Deleting old threads negatively affects this economy, and you have to admit it, so you can't get away with it by claiming that it is just me complaining or being paid for posting is a privilege or a bonus (remember, karma is a bitch). Was that you?

What would change is that you'd never even realize your posts got deleted.   The administration of this forum has no duty to the economy of which you speak,  and therefore shouldn't give a shit about lost earnings resulting from deleted posts.   Only the campaigners themselves care about that and the majority don't give two shits about the health of this forum.

When I first view this thread, I thought the OP was just curious why his post count is diminished by 64 posts and not related to any signature campaign.

Curiousity about what trashy post did he did or what trashy topic he has replied on.

Though it is true that the forum owes to its members the contribution of quality and constructive posts made but regarding this economy you are talking about then forum doesn't owes you or anyone that. You seem to mistakingly define what this forum is all about!

Try to know what this forum is all about. Seems blinded by a lot of campaigns running here and there.

[deisik]

Though it is true that the forum owes to its members the contribution of quality and constructive posts made but regarding this economy you are talking about then forum doesn't owes you or anyone that. You seem to mistakingly define what this forum is all about!

Try to know what this forum is all about. Seems blinded by a lot of campaigns running here and there.

I think it is rather you who don't fully understand what it is about

And it's a pity if the forum administration doesn't understand or care about it either. You would obviously say that it is about Bitcoin discussion and that's all. If that is really all, why not then disable all signatures and get done with that? Would that be good for Bitcoin? If this forum is about making Bitcoin more popular, then you can't possibly say that it will do any good. But if Bitcointalk is in fact about that after all, then this economy is likely the best it can do in that direction. Guess who is actually blind here? Without this economy, the forum would quickly turn into yet another such forum, though created by Satoshi himself. But other than that, it wouldn't have any particular competitive edge. It is this economy that makes it unique, and this economy (at least, to me) is worth a lot more than empty talks (for the most part) which the forum would quickly come down to without it. It is not about duties or obligations, or anything to that tune, it is more about simple common sense of not losing what you have managed to attain. In practice, it means thinking in advance about how your actions are going to affect this whole thing

[dillpicklechips]

-snip-

I think it is rather you who don't fully understand what it is about

And it's a pity if the forum administration doesn't understand or care about it either. You would obviously say that it is about Bitcoin discussion and that's all. If that is really all, why not then disable all signatures and get done with that? Would that be good for Bitcoin? If this forum is about making Bitcoin more popular, then you can't possibly say that it will do any good. But if Bitcointalk is in fact about that after all, then this economy is likely the best it can do in that direction. Guess who is actually blind here? Without this economy, the forum would quickly turn into yet another such forum, though created by Satoshi himself. But other than that, it wouldn't have any particular competitive edge. It is this economy that makes it unique, and this economy (at least, to me) is worth a lot more than empty talks (for the most part) which the forum would quickly come down to without it. It is not about duties or obligations, or anything to that tune, it is more about simple common sense of not losing what you have managed to attain. In practice, it means thinking in advance about how your actions are going to affect this whole thing

You are going out of track. The argument is not on economy or whatever. It is about what the forum owes.

And I am not saying the economy within the forum is nothing like nothing of no value or whatever. It is not just the signature campaign is playing the role in this but all the trades between the users by the use of this forum. Anyway, let's not talk about that much here since it is not the major thing here (I mean in this thread or the topic at hand).

I'll just quote a part of my post:

Though it is true that the forum owes to its members the contribution of quality and constructive posts made but regarding this economy you are talking about then forum doesn't owes you or anyone that.

Honestly, I though that this complaint is not about regarding the signature campaign or whatever but rather to answer the question "why?". But I want to still believe that it is not.

P.S. "BAN ALL SIG CAMPAIGNS" thread

[deisik]

-snip-

I think it is rather you who don't fully understand what it is about

And it's a pity if the forum administration doesn't understand or care about it either. You would obviously say that it is about Bitcoin discussion and that's all. If that is really all, why not then disable all signatures and get done with that? Would that be good for Bitcoin? If this forum is about making Bitcoin more popular, then you can't possibly say that it will do any good. But if Bitcointalk is in fact about that after all, then this economy is likely the best it can do in that direction. Guess who is actually blind here? Without this economy, the forum would quickly turn into yet another such forum, though created by Satoshi himself. But other than that, it wouldn't have any particular competitive edge. It is this economy that makes it unique, and this economy (at least, to me) is worth a lot more than empty talks (for the most part) which the forum would quickly come down to without it. It is not about duties or obligations, or anything to that tune, it is more about simple common sense of not losing what you have managed to attain. In practice, it means thinking in advance about how your actions are going to affect this whole thing

You are going out of track. The argument is not on economy or whatever. It is about what the forum owes

It is not me who is "going out of track"

First, it was not me who started claiming that the forum doesn't owe anything to anyone (or the opposite), so don't come up to me with this question. Talk to those who brought up this issue in the first place (preferably elsewhere). As I already said, forum is made up of users (this is what the word itself means, "a square where people meet to discuss business and political matters"), thus the whole question is utterly meaningless. Just in case, how long ago did you stop beating your wife? Further, I didn't start this thread to complain (though it didn't feel quite right to lose over 60 posts overnight), I came up with a specific proposal to disable deleting old threads since this could negatively affect people who are enrolled in sig campaigns (apart from it being just wrong on its own), and thus this possibility can be abused by mods or whoever is allowed to delete the threads. We have already seen how a mod got kicked out for blackmailing, so don't think of that as something being unlikely or impossible. And I think I have made it pretty clear why this can have negative consequences if we assume that Bitcointalk actually serves to promote Bitcoin, and this has everything to do with the Bitcoin economy that appeared here. If you think that it is a minor thing, think again since "many a little makes a mickle" and "a road of thousand miles is made up of small steps"

[dillpicklechips]

-snip-

-snip-

You are going out of track. The argument is not on economy or whatever. It is about what the forum owes

-snip-

It is not me who is "going out of track"

First, it was not me who started claiming that the forum doesn't owe anything to anyone, so don't come up to me with this question. Talk to those who brought up this issue in the first place (preferably elsewhere). As I already said, forum is made up of users (this is what the word itself means, "a square where people meet to discuss business and political matters"), thus the whole question is meaningless. Further, I didn't start this thread to complain, I came up with a specific proposal to disable deleting old threads since this could negatively affect people who are enrolled in sig campaigns, and thus this possibility can be abused by mods or whoever is allowed to delete the threads. We have already seen how a mod got kicked out for blackmailing, so don't think of that as something being unlikely. And I think I have made it pretty clear why this can have negative consequences if we assume that Bitcointalk actually serves to promote Bitcoin, and this has everything to do with the Bitcoin economy that appeared here. If you think that it is a minor thing, think again since "many a little makes a mickle"

Let's correct that: You have come up with a suggestion like that because of a complaint. A complaint regarding your post diminished by 64 hence you have suggested a proposal to "disable deleting old thread". Why? As you have reasoned: since this could negatively affect people who are enrolled in sig campaigns and and thus this possibility can be abused by mods or whoever is allowed to delete the threads

And no I didn't mention anything minor. And in this economy, signature campaigns have a huge part. I know that "many a little makes a mickle" and you are correct.

If you have any problem with the staffs, mods, or admins here then I'll stay out of it. Though I am not saying it doesn't concern me or anyone in any way.

Your bottom line is: to limit what mods can do since it might be abused and will greatly affect Bitcoin economy i.e. particularly signature campaigns.

Just correct anything because it is based on how I understand you. No offense in any of those I have written.

But remember: the forum doesn't owe anything in this economy. EDIT: It is not the real purpose of the forum so to put in a simpler way, the forum doesn't concern itself with this economy  as long as it functions as to what it should be because if not then the forum would intervene and if worst comes to worst then the forum might throw away this economy (a possibility) but still doing its best for the forum itself and this economy would coexist.

P.S. Ok. You have clarified that the economy is within the argument that's because you have shed light the intention behind this suggestion. So this really is about signature campaigns and not to fill your curiousity as to "why?". I get it now.

P.P.S. You know you have made a good argument in your unedited post like the one I'd quoted. I don't know how my wife was included in the argument (the edited one). I don't have a wife btw.

[deisik]

P.P.S. You know you have made a good argument in your unedited post like the one I'd quoted. I don't know how my wife was included in the argument (the edited one). I don't have a wife btw

This is the whole point

That question was to show how meaningless are such questions in and of itself. You don't have a wife (which is what I expected to hear), but the question that I asked assumes, first, that you have a wife, and, second, that you are (were) beating her. It is essentially the same with the questions like "what does the forum owe you" or statements like "the forum doesn't owe you a living", because such a question (and statement) assumes that a forum can potentially owe you (or anyone) something (or anything) in the first place, which it simply can't. Hope this helps

[dillpicklechips]

P.P.S. You know you have made a good argument in your unedited post like the one I'd quoted. I don't know how my wife was included in the argument (the edited one). I don't have a wife btw

That's the whole point

That question was to show how meaningless are such questions in and of itself. You don't have a wife (which is what I expected to hear), but the question that I asked assumes, first, that you have a wife, and, second, that you are beating her. It is essentially the same with the questions like "what does the forum owe you", because this question assumes that a forum can owe you something (or anything). Hope this helps

Actually you don't make any sense. And I didn't ask any question nor any do except you. So the forum now owes you a living?

-snip-

No, it doesn't have anything to do with my point at all and it seems you don't know what the forum is about. The forum is to discuss bitcoin. The fact that you can get paid to do so is a privilege and a bonus you should be grateful for, but the forum doesn't owe you a living. You're complaining about something petty because you're upset that you've lost out on a few dollars and that's all this is about.

I guess we should stop this argument. I'd like to emphasize this:

"You're complaining about something petty because you're upset that you've lost out on a few dollars and that's all this is about."

P.S. You're neglecting some main points of the argument and just selecting what you can argue about.

[deisik]

I guess we should stop this argument. I'd like to emphasize this:

"You're complaining about something petty because you're upset that you've lost out on a few dollars and that's all this is about."

P.S. You're neglecting some main points of the argument and just selecting what you can argue about.

A good attempt to lick, I second that

The problem is that both of you are taking things out of context and trying to put them into a different one. Obviously, this won't work since there is no point to debate in this specific context (you will lose anyway). Basically, I have come up with a proposal to limit mods' rights to prevent them from covertly abusing these rights. Why hillarious is against that (as least so it appears) is understandable, but it is not quite clear what makes you, a sig campaign participant like me (and not a mod at that), back him up (apart from what I already mentioned above). I would be utterly curious to see it when you find out one morning that half of your posts has been trashed for no reason and without a trace. As you can see, my post count didn't change due to a mod's deliberate action, but I still support my stance since this is just a matter of time when some rogue moderator does something like that (not necessarily to me). We have already seen that (a mod waging a personal vendetta against a certain user), so there is no reason to think that it won't happen again. In this way, you can no longer parrot it like it all comes down to "petty complaining" and forum "owing me a living". Those who followed me in this section know that I'm always in favor of giving users more freedom and limiting rights as well as abuse of these rights by the mods. For example, I was one of the few strongly opposing the idea of introducing the "banned" rank suggested by some former moderator

[dillpicklechips]

I guess we should stop this argument. I'd like to emphasize this:

"You're complaining about something petty because you're upset that you've lost out on a few dollars and that's all this is about."

P.S. You're neglecting some main points of the argument and just selecting what you can argue about.

A good attempt to lick, I second that

The problem is that both of you are taking things out of context and trying to put them into a different one. Obviously, this won't work since there is no point to debate in this specific context (you will lose anyway). Basically, I have come up with a proposal to limit mods' rights to prevent them from covertly abusing these rights. Why hillarious is against that (as least so it appears) is understandable, but it is not quite clear what makes you, a sig campaign participant like me, back him up (apart from what I already mentioned above). I would be utterly curious to see it when you find out one morning that half of your posts has been trashed for no reason and without a trace. As you can see, my post count didn't change due to a mod's deliberate action, but I still support my stance since this is just a matter of time when some rogue moderator does something like that (not necessarily to me). We have already seen that (a mod waging a personal vendetta against a certain user), so there is no reason to think that it won't happen again. In this way, you can no longer parrot it like it all comes down to "petty complaining". Those who followed me in this section know that I'm always in favor of giving users more freedom and limiting rights as well as abuse of these rights by the mods. For example, I was one of the few strongly opposing the idea of introducing the "banned" rank suggested by some former moderator

You're still neglecting some main points of the argument and just selecting what you can argue about.

So just answer this: Does the forum owes you a living?

[BitMaxz]

I'm am also 1 of the affected reduced post count in my account. And i think its not a problem since a new post are not deleted and only the oldest post are got deleted i think you can inform the signature campaign manager to check your present post instead of the old post.
I notice my post count was reduce and i think its not a big deal anytime you can contact the manager who manager your campaign.. Since the signature campaign of coinroll is automated bot counts it can really affected your post count the same happen to someone join in bitmixer campaign that i think better to contact the manager of your campaign.
And i think mods/admin are always doing the right thing for everyone not only to you or me..

[minifrij]

Despite all of the needlessly long paragraphs, all I gathered from this was 'I had less than 0.5% of my posts removed and now I want moderators to be stripped of one of their most important abilities so that I don't lose out on any more precious signature campaign earnings'. I don't think this is worthy of any attention by moderators or administrators.

If you're not happy with trusting global moderators and the administrators you are polling (as they are the only people able to delete the majority of threads on this forum) to not wage some personal vendetta on you, then you shouldn't be on this forum.
Referencing Lauda in this situation as an example of what could happen isn't appropriate, as Lauda's power even as a previous staff member was severely limited to Newbies and posts within their sections. By this, if you wanted to negate all risk of someone like them waging war against you, all you had to do was not post in the sections they were moderating. The scenario you are envisioning can only be done by perhaps 4 to 5 members on the forum, all of which have bigger things to think about than removing some posts of a specific user to stop their signature campaign earnings.

[deisik]

Despite all of the needlessly long paragraphs, all I gathered from this was 'I had less than 0.5% of my posts removed and now I want moderators to be stripped of one of their most important abilities so that I don't lose out on any more precious signature campaign earnings'. I don't think this is worthy of any attention by moderators or administrators

I think you got it all wrong dude, really

But you may have to walk to the beginning of this thread and read again the OP. If you actually read it, you would see that I speak only about old threads. If a thread had been there for months or even years, what is the purpose in deleting it? Did you inadvertently miss that point or specifically chose to ignore it? It is no use trying to make me look or feel guilty in this way (this is what you are going after) since this is applicable not just to me, which I also made clear and which you also chose to ignore. Apart from that, you may want to refresh your memory as to who was so eagerly looking to become a new global moderator here not so long ago, so we were not in fact very far from actually getting into the mess which I think is still possible. To tell the truth, I already witnessed posts deleted by a mod from a resurrected necrothread where just locking it would suffice for all practical intents and purposes (so, in a sense, we are already there)

[minifrij]

If you actually read it, you would see that I speak only about old threads. If a thread had been there for months or even years, what is the purpose in deleting it? Did you inadvertently miss that point or specifically chose to ignore it?

Sometimes deleting old threads are just as appropriate as deleting new ones. Think back to all of the shit threads that got removed, such as the ones that hilariousandco mentioned:

The only big ones I've ever trashed are utter shit threads in gambling discussion or off topic like is 0.002 bitcoin a good amount to gamble with or what time do you wake up in the morning etc after they have quickly been spammed to death.

Do you honestly think that leaving these threads readily available, and thus enabling spammers to bleed the forum, is something that should continue?

"But I said that theymos would have to approve the deletion"
theymos has proven, by his lack of action towards it, that he cares little about signature spam. In addition to this, not only is theymos already busy with his other projects, but then asking him to approve a load of deletions (that are common sense to anyone not skewed by BTC they receive for posting) would be stretching him even thinner than he is already - therefore removing his time from things that actually matter.

It is no use trying to make me look or feel guilty in this way (this is what you are going after) since this is applicable not just to me, which I also made clear and which you also chose to ignore.

It is applicable to everyone that comes to this forum to post for the wrong reason. Normal people - who either don't participate in signature campaigns or see their earnings as a bonus and nothing else - couldn't care less if they have posts removed.
Mitchell has had over 1,000 posts removed from his post count due to these changes. Lauda has had around 700. Your 64 posts are nothing, especially considering the huge amount that you already have, and yet you're still here trying to act like you're not doing this simply out of greed.

Apart from that, you may want to refresh your memory as to who was so eagerly looking to become a new global moderator here not so long ago, so we were not in fact very far from actually getting into the mess which I think is still possible.

I'm eagerly looking to replace the governing body at [insert your country of residence here]. Are you scared about me charging you with crimes and sending you to prison?

To tell the truth, I already witnessed posts deleted by a mod from a resurrected necrothread where just locking it would suffice for all practical intents and purposes

And yet they deleted it anyway, as they thought it would be more appropriate. What disgusting abuse of their power, right?

[Muhammed Zakir]

If you actually read it, you would see that I speak only about old threads. If a thread had been there for months or even years, what is the purpose in deleting it? Did you inadvertently miss that point or specifically chose to ignore it?

Sometimes deleting old threads are just as appropriate as deleting new ones. Think back to all of the shit threads that got removed, such as the ones that hilariousandco mentioned:

The only big ones I've ever trashed are utter shit threads in gambling discussion or off topic like is 0.002 bitcoin a good amount to gamble with or what time do you wake up in the morning etc after they have quickly been spammed to death.

I agree.

Do you honestly think that leaving these threads readily available, and thus enabling spammers to bleed the forum, is something that should continue?
  -snip-

He suggested to lock old threads instead of deleting them.

I think trashy old threads need to be deleted so people won't participate in such threads again which could reduce trashy/spam threads/posts.

[minifrij]

He suggested to lock old threads instead of deleting them.

I'd agree in a way that old threads that had value but were necrod should be locked, however depending on what was posted in the necro these posts should be deleted. For threads that offer nothing but a place for people to build up their post count, they should be deleted (as you said).

[deisik]

If you actually read it, you would see that I speak only about old threads. If a thread had been there for months or even years, what is the purpose in deleting it? Did you inadvertently miss that point or specifically chose to ignore it?

Sometimes deleting old threads are just as appropriate as deleting new ones

Give me just one reason why deleting an old, long abandoned thread is better than simply locking it

You won't be able to name even one (apart from purely technical issues such as lack of disk space, etc). If there is an old spam thread, it pretty much means that it had been a mod's fault not to delete it right away. Anyway, just locking it would suffice. Further, I'm myself against raising necrothreads, but if they are left open, mods should expect that they might be and one day will be resurrected, and there is absolutely no reason to blame folks for doing that (let alone delete their posts in these threads)

Apart from that, you may want to refresh your memory as to who was so eagerly looking to become a new global moderator here not so long ago, so we were not in fact very far from actually getting into the mess which I think is still possible.

I'm eagerly looking to replace the governing body at [insert your country of residence here]. Are you scared about me charging you with crimes and sending you to prison?

I don't understand where you are getting at and how it is relevant to this topic

To tell the truth, I already witnessed posts deleted by a mod from a resurrected necrothread where just locking it would suffice for all practical intents and purposes

And yet they deleted it anyway, as they thought it would be more appropriate. What disgusting abuse of their power, right?

Oh, I remember that at first, you claimed that I talk only about what could (theoretically) happen (meaning that it might not happen at all), and now, after the fact, you tell me that "they thought it would be more appropriate"

So what is the purpose of you posting here?

[dillpicklechips]

It is no use trying to make me look or feel guilty in this way (this is what you are going after) since this is applicable not just to me, which I also made clear and which you also chose to ignore.

It is applicable to everyone that comes to this forum to post for the wrong reason. Normal people - who either don't participate in signature campaigns or see their earnings as a bonus and nothing else - couldn't care less if they have posts removed.

Truly. That's why I am kinda disappointed when his intention in creating this thread has shown its true colors. I thought he was just like curious but then again it is because of his signature campaign. Well personally, I do not care if my posts are deleted since it happens to me like I reply to a topic saying that it has been posted with a link then the OP would delete the thread or maybe a mod then that's it. There are also some cases where I don't know what was deleted but it is the least of my concerns. I can quote some who also feels this way.

People shouldn't be obsessive about post counts...

I did a global recount of user posts starting yesterday. Your post count had been inaccurate.

I think I have seen my post count shrink with 6 posts, which isn't a big deal for me at all, but I was wondering, how does one end up with an inaccurate post count?

I'm am also 1 of the affected reduced post count in my account. And i think its not a problem since a new post are not deleted and only the oldest post are got deleted i think you can inform the signature campaign manager to check your present post instead of the old post.
I notice my post count was reduce and i think its not a big deal anytime you can contact the manager who manager your campaign.. Since the signature campaign of coinroll is automated bot counts it can really affected your post count the same happen to someone join in bitmixer campaign that i think better to contact the manager of your campaign.
And i think mods/admin are always doing the right thing for everyone not only to you or me..

And these guys don't even make a big fuss from it.

Mitchell has had over 1,000 posts removed from his post count due to these changes. Lauda has had around 700. Your 64 posts are nothing, especially considering the huge amount that you already have, and yet you're still here trying to act like you're not doing this simply out of greed.

Making a big fuss because his signature campaign earnings are reduced. Going through economy and whatsoever. Oh I almost forgot that he also goes through my imaginary wife since I don't have one.

He suggested to lock old threads instead of deleting them.

I'd agree in a way that old threads that had value but were necrod should be locked, however depending on what was posted in the necro these posts should be deleted. For threads that offer nothing but a place for people to build up their post count, they should be deleted (as you said).

Ok bye.  

[Muhammed Zakir]

If you actually read it, you would see that I speak only about old threads. If a thread had been there for months or even years, what is the purpose in deleting it? Did you inadvertently miss that point or specifically chose to ignore it?

Sometimes deleting old threads are just as appropriate as deleting new ones

Give me just one reason why deleting an old, long abandoned thread is better than simply locking it

You won't be able to name even one (apart from purely technical issues such as lack of disk space, etc). If there is an old spam thread, it pretty much means that it had been a mod's fault not to delete it right away. Anyway, just locking it would suffice.

First of all, I will say the same thing to you:

{...} Did you inadvertently miss that point or specifically chose to ignore it?

Your question has already been answered.

  -snip-
I think trashy old threads need to be deleted so people won't participate in such threads again which could reduce trashy/spam threads/posts.

I'd agree in a way that old threads that had value but were necrod should be locked, however depending on what was posted in the necro these posts should be deleted. For threads that offer nothing but a place for people to build up their post count, they should be deleted (as you said).

Further, I'm myself against raising necrothreads, but if they are left open, mods should expect that they might be and one day will be resurrected,

It's impossible to lock every old threads just because it can be "resurrected". There are many reasons for a thread to be bumbed, though people create new threads normally. And, hilariousandco has already said *only* trashy threads are deleted. If it is a good old thread and was spammed, only spam posts are deleted and maybe locked too!

{...} and there is absolutely no reason to blame folks for doing that (let alone delete their posts in these threads)
  -snip-

Your post is deleted *only* if it is spam. If it trashy thread, it is deleted and posts in it go along with it to the trashcan. But in your opinion, you shouldn't blame even if the post is spam and shouldn't hold users accounted for it?

#its_all_mods_fault  #Power_abusing

[minifrij]

Give me just one reason why deleting an old, long abandoned thread is better than simply locking it

If an old thread is full of spam and people using it for nothing other than to boost their account's post count/signature earnings, it is appropriate for a thread to be deleted in order to make it more difficult for those who used the thread for that purpose to fulfill it.

Regarding the bolded part, that is irrelevant. You talked about old threads in the OP, not necessarily those that have been necrod. Old threads included those mentioned by hilariousandco that he deleted. You can see what I feel about necro posts in my last post in this thread:

I'd agree in a way that old threads that had value but were necrod should be locked, however depending on what was posted in the necro these posts should be deleted.

Stop trying to move the goalposts.

You won't be able to name even one

Whoopsy daisy.

If there is an old spam thread, it pretty much means that it had been a mod's fault not to delete it right away.

Unless the rules have changed since that old spam thread was created, making it no longer appropriate to be available.

Anyway, just locking it would suffice.

See my first point.

Further, I'm myself against raising necrothreads, but if they are left open, mods should expect that they might be and one day will be resurrected, and there is absolutely no reason to blame folks for doing that (let alone delete their posts in these threads)

While any thread on the forum is open, it is susceptible for spam to be posted in it. Therefore, every thread on the forum should be locked and no new threads should be allowed to be made.

I don't understand where you are getting at and how it is relevant to this topic

That using scenarios that didn't happen (and likely wouldn't happen) in order to push an agenda is silly. By making up my own random story, I hoped to show that.

Oh, I remember that at first, you claimed that I talk only about what could (theoretically) happen (meaning that it might not happen at all), and now, after the fact, you tell me that "they thought it would be more appropriate"

Were the posts deleted in these threads posted by more than one person/account? Were the posts deleted in these threads of any actual quality, meaning they added something to the discussion? Was the act of these posts being deleted a single isolated incident? If you answered yes to any of these questions, the act doesn't line up with your theoretical and thus this is a moot point.

In addition, the acts that happen on this forum (with and without your proposal) are always open to a moderator or admin's discretion. Whatever an administrator or moderator thinks would be most appropriate is what would happen, whether you or I think it is right or not. I don't see what argument you're trying to make here.

So what is the purpose of you posting here?

The answer to this really depends on what you mean by here.

If you're referring to this thread, I'm trying to make it clear why your suggestions are silly and are for nothing other than to benefit your own income.
If you're referring to the forum, it is because I enjoy posting here and discussing things with members that I would otherwise be unable to. I have met a number of people that I trust and respect through this forum, and I would like to continue trying to find said people and enjoying myself.

Ok bye.  

[deisik]

Give me just one reason why deleting an old, long abandoned thread is better than simply locking it

If an old thread is full of spam and people using it for nothing other than to boost their account's post count/signature earnings, it is appropriate for a thread to be deleted in order to make it more difficult for those who used the thread for that purpose to fulfill it

So just locking the thread is a no-op?

If so, what about those non-spammy posts in it? These will get deleted too, as far as I can see? Did you ever wonder that it is a moderator's job to delete spam posts as fast as possible so that it never comes to deleting the whole thread (provided it wasn't a spam thread right from the start)? In the OP I meant specifically the threads that are no longer posted in, i.e. necrothreads (I thought it was evident from the context). The threads that are still active and old at that cannot be spammy by definition (as a whole, apart from individual posts), so they are just out of question altogether (it's no use trying to concoct impossible combinations here as it better suits your point), while deleting them would raise a lot of noise on their own. There were a few long threads about Gold vs Bitcoin, and they all had been locked, with only one remaining open. In short, I mean non-spammy abandoned threads created months if not years ago. Why should they ever get deleted and not locked (if necroraising is disallowed)?

Oh, I remember that at first, you claimed that I talk only about what could (theoretically) happen (meaning that it might not happen at all), and now, after the fact, you tell me that "they thought it would be more appropriate"

Were the posts deleted in these threads posted by more than one person/account? Were the posts deleted in these threads of any actual quality, meaning they added something to the discussion? Was the act of these posts being deleted a single isolated incident?

Wow, now it's no longer "they thought it would be more appropriate". I guess you are already past the point of back-pedaling this issue. But you may still ask hilarious (if you are really curious)