Post Wrongly Deleted? Trigger Happy?

[Armis]

I went here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=990261.msg10776351#msg10776351

"Quote
Quote from: Chef Ramsay on Today at 09:25:01 PM
Solitude's comment was so vulgar and shocking that I literally burst out laughing, sorry for that. ...


+1


in all seriousness, Carrie (the pedicab driver, er rider) has such a great spirit she is a great ambassador for btc."




Then got notice that: "A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted."  

Did someone get trigger happy or what?  just because there's a "+1" doesn't mean the post is "spam". Read the rest of the post, "in all seriousness, Carrie (the pedicab driver, er rider) has such a great spirit she is a great ambassador for btc"  Where is the problem in the post?

[1715066344]

1715066344

[1715066344]

1715066344

[1715066344]

1715066344

[rikkie]

I had posted in what was most likely the same thread as the one that you had your post deleted in (the one about the bicycle driver named carrie with the youtube video). My post was not deleted.

I would say that what you quoted as saying was probably not spam however it did add very little to the conversation and would have probably been more appropriate to delete had you been wearing a paid signature.

[Armis]

I had posted in what was most likely the same thread as the one that you had your post deleted in (the one about the bicycle driver named carrie with the youtube video). My post was not deleted.

I would say that what you quoted as saying was probably not spam however it did add very little to the conversation and would have probably been more appropriate to delete had you been wearing a paid signature.

If I only wrote this: "in all seriousness, Carrie (the pedicab driver, er rider) has such a great spirit she is a great ambassador for btc." it would be more than sufficient, heck it was probably longer than the OP.  However, IN ADDITION to that I responded to the really funny comment indirectly by quoting part of Chef Ramsey's post.   

anyway I think the person that did the complaining as well as the person that deleted the posts got carried away. 

[Miracal]

I had posted in what was most likely the same thread as the one that you had your post deleted in (the one about the bicycle driver named carrie with the youtube video). My post was not deleted.

I would say that what you quoted as saying was probably not spam however it did add very little to the conversation and would have probably been more appropriate to delete had you been wearing a paid signature.

what is the problem of wearing a paid signature? Some ppl may assume the posts will more likely to be spam! It is completely prejudece. Howerer, I have to say moderators are likely arbitrarily judging the quality of the posts and delete them.

[rikkie]

I had posted in what was most likely the same thread as the one that you had your post deleted in (the one about the bicycle driver named carrie with the youtube video). My post was not deleted.

I would say that what you quoted as saying was probably not spam however it did add very little to the conversation and would have probably been more appropriate to delete had you been wearing a paid signature.

what is the problem of wearing a paid signature? Some ppl may assume the posts will more likely to be spam! It is completely prejudece. Howerer, I have to say moderators are likely arbitrarily judging the quality of the posts and delete them.

There is nothing wrong with anyone wearing a paid signature (I am wearing one myself). However I think the reality is that people with paid signatures tend to spam more and as a result should be held to a higher standard then those who are not receiving a specific payment based on how many posts they write.

This may not result in the 100% equal treatment for everyone in the forum, however it would likely be what is best for the community overall and would likely still result in everyone being treated fairly

[Armis]

I had posted in what was most likely the same thread as the one that you had your post deleted in (the one about the bicycle driver named carrie with the youtube video). My post was not deleted.

I would say that what you quoted as saying was probably not spam however it did add very little to the conversation and would have probably been more appropriate to delete had you been wearing a paid signature.

what is the problem of wearing a paid signature? Some ppl may assume the posts will more likely to be spam! It is completely prejudece. Howerer, I have to say moderators are likely arbitrarily judging the quality of the posts and delete them.

There is nothing wrong with anyone wearing a paid signature (I am wearing one myself). However I think the reality is that people with paid signatures tend to spam more and as a result should be held to a higher standard then those who are not receiving a specific payment based on how many posts they write.

This may not result in the 100% equal treatment for everyone in the forum, however it would likely be what is best for the community overall and would likely still result in everyone being treated fairly

The deletion came from "Bitcoin Forum Guest" so since it was not a self moderated forum, my guess is someone complained and the forum program allowed for the automatic removal of the post, IDK.   

Automatic or human,  the practice should be identified as wrong then modified.

[shorena]

-snip-
The deletion came from "Bitcoin Forum Guest" so since it was not a self moderated forum, my guess is someone complained and the forum program allowed for the automatic removal of the post, IDK.   

Automatic or human,  the practice should be identified as wrong then modified.

Its certainly done by a human, the name of the moderator is just masked/hidden.

-snip-
There is nothing wrong with anyone wearing a paid signature (I am wearing one myself). However I think the reality is that people with paid signatures tend to spam more and as a result should be held to a higher standard then those who are not receiving a specific payment based on how many posts they write.

This may not result in the 100% equal treatment for everyone in the forum, however it would likely be what is best for the community overall and would likely still result in everyone being treated fairly

The problem is - as BadBear stated just recently - that its impossible to distinguish between posts to increase your post count and posts that are just ... Ill just quote it instead of trying to rephrase it:

-snip-
There are people who just don't post very well in general, post "too much", or don't really have anything to say, they just like to participate in the community and post. This itself is fine. But when you add an ad to these kinds of posters, it's difficult or impossible to tell if they just aren't quality posters or if they are attempting to boost their post count. I used to err on the side of caution here because I do not want to ban the former, just the latter, but too many of the latter are slipping through the cracks because it's very difficult to gauge someone's intentions. This is the main thing that has changed lately.

[Armis]

-snip-
There is nothing wrong with anyone wearing a paid signature (I am wearing one myself). However I think the reality is that people with paid signatures tend to spam more and as a result should be held to a higher standard then those who are not receiving a specific payment based on how many posts they write.

This may not result in the 100% equal treatment for everyone in the forum, however it would likely be what is best for the community overall and would likely still result in everyone being treated fairly

The problem is - as BadBear stated just recently - that its impossible to distinguish between posts to increase your post count and posts that are just ... Ill just quote it instead of trying to rephrase it:

-snip-
There are people who just don't post very well in general, post "too much", or don't really have anything to say, they just like to participate in the community and post. This itself is fine. But when you add an ad to these kinds of posters, it's difficult or impossible to tell if they just aren't quality posters or if they are attempting to boost their post count. I used to err on the side of caution here because I do not want to ban the former, just the latter, but too many of the latter are slipping through the cracks because it's very difficult to gauge someone's intentions. This is the main thing that has changed lately.

Thanks for that info,

If the forum is so concerned about people padding their post counts, why not allow for the option to remove post count completely from view?

I'm a heavy contributor to the site because I seek great knowledge vested in this site, not a higher post count. 

 

[redsn0w]

-snip-
There is nothing wrong with anyone wearing a paid signature (I am wearing one myself). However I think the reality is that people with paid signatures tend to spam more and as a result should be held to a higher standard then those who are not receiving a specific payment based on how many posts they write.

This may not result in the 100% equal treatment for everyone in the forum, however it would likely be what is best for the community overall and would likely still result in everyone being treated fairly

The problem is - as BadBear stated just recently - that its impossible to distinguish between posts to increase your post count and posts that are just ... Ill just quote it instead of trying to rephrase it:

-snip-
There are people who just don't post very well in general, post "too much", or don't really have anything to say, they just like to participate in the community and post. This itself is fine. But when you add an ad to these kinds of posters, it's difficult or impossible to tell if they just aren't quality posters or if they are attempting to boost their post count. I used to err on the side of caution here because I do not want to ban the former, just the latter, but too many of the latter are slipping through the cracks because it's very difficult to gauge someone's intentions. This is the main thing that has changed lately.

Thanks for that info,

If the forum is so concerned about people padding their post counts, why not allow for the option to remove post count completely from view?

I'm a heavy contributor to the site because I seek great knowledge vested in this site, not a higher post count. 

 

I think because it is a forum, and the post count is a basic forum function. The problem is "only the content" of the post itself (not the numbers). There is a lot of users post continuously the same "concept" but with different words or also there is some users that publish insubstantial posts and continuing to don't understand ( intentionally). In all this chaos is normal that someone with a "different" and striking signature are "targeted".

[Armis]

Talk about trigger Happy.

I recently saw this:

MOVED: Graphic Artist Needed For PICISI Project
March 13, 2015, 09:51:12 PM
 #1
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=988062.0

Double post. Original here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=976204.0  

So the question is: "When Is A Double Post NOT A Double Post?"   Ans: When the first one is locked before the second one is created. 



Perhaps the mod didn't notice that I locked the first thread before I started the new thread.  

I hired a contractor in the first thread, he later backed out of the deal so I wanted a new start with a fresh new thread.  

So quick to judge wrongly, why is this?    

[grue]

Talk about trigger Happy.

I recently saw this:

MOVED: Graphic Artist Needed For PICISI Project
March 13, 2015, 09:51:12 PM
 #1
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=988062.0

Double post. Original here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=976204.0 

So the question is: "When Is A Double Post NOT A Double Post?"   Ans: When the first one is locked before the second one is created. 



Perhaps the mod didn't notice that I locked the first thread before I started the new thread.   

I hired a contractor in the first thread, he later backed out of the deal so I wanted a new start with a fresh new thread. 

So quick to judge wrongly, why is this?   

it has since been moved back

[Armis]

thanks