Daniel Benson said:
Amster, there's no need for the animosity, the deletions were simply made because the moderator thought it was in the best interest of the forum community. If you disagree, that's fine, state why and we'll try and approach the thread next time with an approach that takes on board your comments and feelings.
Remember not all mods work with exactly the same style, each brings their own personality to the job, but lets try and incorporate that and work together.
Cheers
Daniel
Wow. I must have hit a nerve somewhere! I can't recall ever seeing a complaint being replied to by you within 20 minutes. I will address this to both you and hiero, so that I don't have to make separate posts.
Editing out "in your usual misguided way" as being an "attack", is by some distance the most childish, misplaced action I have ever seen here by a mod. (I can't speak to what might go on in the Clinic, since I virtually never even look in there, though of course, one hears rumors.)
I'm finding it hard to justify my disagreement as you have asked, because I have absolutely no idea whose posts were deleted, or what they contained. I did not return to the Boston topic after making the post that hiero so misguidedly felt compelled to edit, until the moment before I made my post here. I saw on the index page that Rhub had replied and was, as always, interested to see what my learned friend had to say. When I opened the topic, there was no Rhub post, nor was there any explanation, justification, or other elucidation by hiero about why he had done what he did. Hence my complaint here.
Both Rhub and I would like to know whose posts were deleted, and who hiero thought was being targeted or offended. At the point that I made the post that was edited, there were no other posts that could by the remotest stretch of anyone's imagination be called offensive towards anyone. So, whatever hiero felt compelled to remove was posted thereafter. Therefore, I have no idea what went on, and cannot give an opinion as to the merits of hiero's actions, with the exception of his editing of my post as described above. I knew that Scott would not be offended by the words hiero felt he had to edit out, and indeed, he has confirmed that here.
This is a perfect example of a (newish) mod sticking his nose into a place that he is not familiar with, and getting it wrong. You may or may not be aware, Daniel, that just like there exists a 'hard core' in the Clinic, there is also a group of posters, of whom I am one, who spend a great deal of time in the Cafe. The vast majority of posters who frequent the politics topic(s), are long time CN posters, who have pretty much come to know and understand the quirks and idiosyncrasies of those with whom they have exchanged daily banter with for years. We are almost entirely self-regulating, and on those rare occasions when some mod intercession is actually required, Alpe does a fine job of 'feeling' the mood of the place, and moderates with common sense, and moderation. The Cafe is very much a sub-forum where 'don't call us, we'll call you if needed' applies.
I would therefore kindly request, on behalf of the other Cafe regulars too, that hiero informs us whose posts he deleted, what he felt was so offensive as to require deletion, and to whom he thought they were being offensive. I would further request that he desists from any such actions in the Cafe in future, and that you all let Alpe (and Susan) get on with it in the manner to which regular Cafe posters have become accustomed. The Cafe is no hotbed of trolling (with one very occasional exception,) there is very little serious animosity between posters despite the political differences we have. Certainly, there is nothing in the Cafe that requires, or warrants, heavy-handed plod moderation like we have seen today. Again, there may indeed have been seriously offensive posts, I cannot judge because I never saw them. But, if what hiero considered to be 'offensive' in my post is anything to judge by, the posts he removed are probably posts that would not have bothered any of the regulars, and would have been left alone by Alpe.
If the objection was simply that Scott, Rhub, myself, or the unknown (to me) posters whose posts were deleted, were going 'off topic' by even mentioning the accusations being flung around about who might be responsible for the bombing, then hiero really was way off base. The Boston topic was never going to be simply a 'book of condolences'. Speculation about the possible perpetrators was both logical, and inevitable. If someone wants to specifically post an RIP only topic when some tragedy occurs, they can define it as such and ask for cooperation which, I am certain, would be given.
This topic was not 'limited' in any way, so it is churlish to suggest that speculation after the event is somehow 'off-topic'. The entire internet is full of people shouting at one another about who might have committed this act. I didn't see any shouting, I saw nothing remotely out of character for the Cafe, which is why I am making something of a 'big deal' about this.
Mods are human, mods make mistakes. As I mentioned, I have long term personal experience, and I'll be the first to admit that I have made mistakes of judgement on a few occasions down the years. As far as I can tell, this was one on hiero's part. It is not the end of the world, but it would be 'nice' to have an acknowledgement from him that his actions were unnecessarily heavy-handed in a sub-forum that he normally rarely appears in.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram