All a midstream rule change does is raise the ugly notion of having to have two rules for content treatment in terms of those posted prior to any significant shift.  It likely is NOT a big deal, although I am unaware of how many times members have sought to delete stuff and been accommodated or denied.

 

[content deleted]

It likely is NOT a big deal, although I am unaware of how many times members have sought to delete stuff and been accommodated or denied.

To be perfectly frank and honest and lay out the source of the discussion:  The issue at hand was that certain users had their ability to modify their own posts REMOVED by the staff of the boards, for editing their posts and/or removing content from their posts. 

Which is what I was calling shenanigans on.  If it is a rule, in the rules, that people own their content, then removing their ability to have any functional control over that content is BREAKING THE RULES, and total and utter bullshit.  Which is to say either everybody can edit their content or NOBODY should be able to edit their content and words to such effect should be placed in the rules document. 

Now I believe it is perfectly acceptable to kick somebody out and ban them if they're being a dick by going around and fucking with threads by changing the things they said or deleting things maliciously.  Under the "Don't Be A Dick" clauses. 

If I own my content I should be able to do what I want with that content unless I'm being a dick about it.  And then I shouldn't have my ability to do what I want with my content revoked, I should be told:  "Doing that means you're being a dick and you'll be banned and everything deleted." 

And, yes, I happen to know of one incident in which someone was trying to edit/remove content that was actively HURTING THEIR EMPLOYABILITY and causing them issues within their employment community and got shit for it.

--fje

So, what I'm understanding is, you don't want content free posts on the board. Right? So, if I went back and changed all my posts to "I love cheese." it would be ok.

I think that worrying about if the site is pretty or not (that's what defacement means, right?) is not as important as whether or users have the right to delete their content.

How about this as a solution? We make a usergroup that has a delete button. If someone wants to delete posts, they can ask us, and we'll put them into that group. That way there's some communication and thought involved, but the control rests in the hands of the poster.

I would say this works only in that anyone who asks is allowed to enter the group and it isn't a selective thing based on whether or not the mods like someone.  I know the mod group all takes great care not to play favorites or attack people based on likability, but I worry about people being unable to do as they will with the content they own.  If it's akin to a 1-day waiting period but people aren't going to be denied entry, sure.

As I've said above, I'd rather see somebody get banned and everything they've added deleted summarily than somebody told that they're not allowed to edit or change their posts because someone on-staff decides they don't like their face or somesuch.

You'd think I was a libertarian, the way I go on.

--fje

You could use the "Report to Moderator" button on your own post, but again, that's subject to mod discretion.

Just FYI, you actually *can't* report your own posts to the moderator. I tried that when I wanted a locked thread edited, and it wouldn't allow me. Maybe this can be fixed? Is it a bug? Or a "feature"?

What kind and courteous staff you have here. My oh my.

It was an informal rule and had been a formal rule on xF.  It is now a formal rule here.