My concern is not with the dirty bathwater but to ensure that the baby is not thrown out with it.

My initial reaction to that would be - who are you trying to kid?


Most automatically generated spam is usually automatically deleted before most us see it. So what happens to the little spam that slips past - should perhaps not concern our forum to the extent that it is currently encouraged to be seen to?

How "little" do you think that is? I have to view "new posts since your last visit" frequently - and know that Mudcat sees a dozen or so spam messages a day that slip past the filters. Not a lot, seeing as some spambots send out thousands a minute, but on many forums even ONE piece of spam generates a big stink.   

It should certainly not be used as an excuse and justification to treat invited contributions from posters as if they were also automatically generated.

What proof do you have that this occurs? I doubt that it does.


When any invited contributed is posted - I suggest that the poster should at least always be made aware in an editing comment that their post has been judged by our 'moderators' to require some form of imposed censorship.

Your suggestion has been refused, publicly. YOu have been notified that your sugfgestion has been refused. You have also been informed that if you dispute that judgement you need to take it up with the site owner in private communication.

In addition to your suggestion being refused - it in inherent in posting to this site that the Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to delete, modify, move, edit etc any post.

'Silent deletion' is perhaps accepable for automatically generated spam and for conventional posts in the few very extreme cases.

What you term "silent deletion" is standard practice on virtually the entire internet. Not only is explanation of editing not required or provided - in most cases questioning of such procedures is automatically deleted.

But I suggest that it is not perhaps the proportionate first and only response for all the other cases?

Why do you seem to always try to make your points absolute? And, again, what proof can you show that deletion is the "first and only" response"?


Where is seems to be overlooked that such drastic treatment will result in (possibly an equally drastic) reaction?

Possibly there will be a reaction- normally that reaction is the offending poster reforms their behaviour. Sometimes they leave the forum. Normaly if the offending poster does NOT reform their behaviour they get banned.

Any poster who cannot find their contribution - should perhaps know if the reason is that it has been subject to imposed censorship?

NO. Why? Any post to this site is potentially subject to deletion, editing, modification, etc. It is a given.

For if posters do not see an editing comment to that effect - they will have no reason to become paranoid or defensive and can then consider other reasons for their post's non-appearance

The above, I think, means that *IF* posters *saw* such a statement they would have no reason etc.....

In general - your average poster does NOT get paranoid and defensive - if they have a post deleted most people assume there was a reason; whether or not they know what that reason is.

---

Faulty .html coding in the above post has been corrected by an anonymous moderator.