[Q] Seeking clarification

[libert19]

Post in question: WO thread

Question in question: https://talkimg.com/image/U1xOY8 — what does underlined statement mean? I assume it means 174 posts have been deleted and those had earned 9 merits, is that correct interpretation?

[Zaguru12]

Yes I think that’s what it means to 174 posts belonging to 1 user has been deleted and the total merit earned from that 174 posts deleted was actually 9 merits. This to me is a case of a user post been nuked by moderator

[Nwada001]

You both are right with the explanation according to theymos explanation when he implemented the new feature.

In the "This is a self-moderated topic" warning, stats will now be printed about how many posts have been deleted if any posts have been deleted. The stats start now, not the beginning of time, and they are cached for quite some time. If any of the deleted posts had any merit before they were deleted, then this whole stat block will be printed in bold. Currently the stats never reset; I haven't decided yet whether this is OK.

[Cookdata]

The WO thread is self moderated but I'm don't think the OP deleted posts from any user. The 174 posts by 1 users with 9 merit deleted is an indication of a user that has been nuked by a moderator, all his posts in WO thread deleted.

Check the difference between that one and this one from this thread.



57 posts from 12+ users deleted. This mean 12 users had their posts deleted from the thread but none of them had merit.

[Halab]

This to me is a case of a user post been nuked by moderator

The WO thread is self moderated but I'm don't think the OP deleted posts from any user. The 174 posts by 1 users with 9 merit deleted is an indication of a user that has been nuked by a moderator, all his posts in WO thread deleted.

No, normally, a user with 174 posts can't be nuked (delete all posts at once + ban). Because only young newbies can be nuked.
The deleted posts were removed by the OP or a mod/GM, but it was done one post at a time.

[vapourminer]

something seems off on the WO count...    124 by 1 user

i seem to remember posts by far more than one user being deleted, easily 6+

did it reset at some point? maybe with ownership change?

[libert19]

...

57 posts from 12+ users deleted. This mean 12 users had their posts deleted from the thread but none of them had merit.

Why is it not just referred as 12 instead of 12+!? Plus, how you figure whether post was deleted by op (provided thread was self-mod) and when by mod?

...and a nitpick,

it should be, 'user(s)' instead of 'users' because when there is 1 user in question, it kinda feels wrong for it to be mentioned as 1 users — https://talkimg.com/image/UL2ptv

[Cookdata]

...

57 posts from 12+ users deleted. This mean 12 users had their posts deleted from the thread but none of them had merit.

Why is it not just referred as 12 instead of 12+!? Plus, how you figure whether post was deleted by op (provided thread was self-mod) and when by mod?

...and a nitpick,

it should be, 'user(s)' instead of 'users' because when there is 1 user in question, it kinda feels wrong for it to be mentioned as 1 users — https://talkimg.com/image/UL2ptv

The WO thread is big that I don't think 1 user can have 174 posts and OP would have to delete it 174 times, the user in question would have been reported but then, the s in users could mean that deleted posts belong to many users, not 1 person.

I thought the same with what Halab said and I saw another self moderated thread.



Why 1+ user and not like the earlier, it possible the deleted posts belong to many users as indicated users from the WO thread.

[SamReomo]

I think all those posts were deleted by the member who posted those posts, not by any moderator. Moderators don't really care much about posts in WO thread because that's a huge thread and I'm very sure that no moderator is going to spend hours to find posts in that thread.

Some users delete their old posts and there's nothing wrong in that approach, also I must say that OP of WO doesn't care about any posts in that thread and he/she doesn't delete any posts from that thread if I'm not wrong.

Yes, it's true if someone reports posts to moderators/admins then they could delete those posts but if I'm not wrong, I don't think anyone is going to report someone's 174 posts and that's why I believe those posts were deleted by the user itself.

[vapourminer]

I think all those posts were deleted by the member who posted those posts, not by any moderator.

no

hundreds of posts in WO have deleted by the posters and they do not show up in the WO header

so it must be mods or OP (infofront/adam)

[SamReomo]

no

hundreds of posts in WO have deleted by the posters and they do not show up in the WO header

so it must be mods or OP (ibminer/adam)

Moderators only delete the posts if those are reported if I'm not wrong or the newbie accounts that posted in the WO thread get nuked. The member/OP might delete the their posts and it's also true and I agree that moderators might delete the posts otherwise.

[Majestic-milf]

Yes, it's true if someone reports posts to moderators/admins then they could delete those posts but if I'm not wrong, I don't think anyone is going to report someone's 174 posts and that's why I believe those posts were deleted by the user itself.

So someone just decides that 174 of his posts are no longer relevant as he feels it has served it's purpose and it's now time to be deleted? I'm curious though as to why such a thing can happen. If it's an admin that decided to get those posts nuked, I still wonder . I'm not a poster in the WO thread but I know it's not that bad, even though there are some posts that could be regarded as spam.

[Zoomic]

it should be, 'user(s)' instead of 'users' because when there is 1 user in question, it kinda feels wrong for it to be mentioned as 1 users — https://talkimg.com/image/UL2ptv

That is programmers way of writing statements.
Users is fixed and doesn't change, what changes is the numbers. It could be 1 users, 2 users, 173 users  but the "users" is constant.
hope you get?

[libert19]

it should be, 'user(s)' instead of 'users' because when there is 1 user in question, it kinda feels wrong for it to be mentioned as 1 users — https://talkimg.com/image/UL2ptv

That is programmers way of writing statements.
Users is fixed and doesn't change, what changes is the numbers. It could be 1 users, 2 users, 173 users  but the "users" is constant.
hope you get?

No idea about programming. Is it hard to change, 'users' to 'user(s)'!?

[Nwada001]

Moderators only delete the posts if those are reported if I'm not wrong or the newbie accounts that posted in the WO thread get nuked. The member/OP might delete the their posts and it's also true and I agree that moderators might delete the posts otherwise.

Yes, moderators attend and delete posts that are being reported, and WO is a place where posting what many who are active there don’t agree with can get reported as well, and the moderator of that board can handle it, or it could also be op of the thread.


Side question: If one reports a bad post in a self-moderated thread, does the OP of the thread get the notification alongside the moderators in charge of the board or just the moderators? I can’t find this information on the self-moderated Intro thread .

[hosemary]

Side question: If one reports a bad post in a self-moderated thread, does the OP of the thread get the notification alongside the moderators in charge of the board or just the moderators?

No, the button you click when you want to report a post is named "Report to moderator". That suggests reports are sent only to moderators.
Also, if you try to report a post in Wall Observer, you will see a message telling you to contact the OP instead of using report feature. This indicates that if you want the OP to handle your report, you need to contact them directly.

[LoyceV]

I see a lot of incorrect explanations in this thread. As far as I know, this is how it should be:

• The counter on top of a self-moderated topic only counts posts deleted by the topic starter (not Mods!).
• The post count is accurate (although with a delay).
• The Merit count is accurate.
• The user counter is not accurate, it drops after a couple of users.

The bug exists because old deleted posts are eventually removed from the database, and I didn't account for this when implementing the selfmod stats, so the data on which posts were created by which users is missing for old deleted posts.

The message will now say something like "(9 posts by 1+ users with 3 merit deleted.)". The first and third numbers are accurate, but the second number is imprecise; the second number will actually be "distinct users whose posts were selfmod-deleted and whose deleted posts are not very old and therefore still happen to be in the database." I could add more logging so that an accurate count could still be determined, but I don't think that it's very important to give the absolute correct number here, especially since any recent selfmod activity will still increase the count.

[libert19]

^ I assume op must have had beef with some user, he'd post and op be like delete... delete... delete.