However, having said that, I am in favour of some method of advising the whys & wherefores of thread deletion. Perhaps, as suggested a permathread on deleted threads (but would a Guest know where to find it?)

I would suggest that certainly the 'guest' who claims to have deleted the post in question should know. But the present FAQ does not say that posts will be automatically deleted, should they not follow a suggested guideline. The management reserving the right to do this, is not the same thing as the routine deletion of posts, by unknown volunteers. Perhaps this can now stop?

But what exactly was the problem that meant that this post had to automatically and quickly deleted? For if this action had not taken place, it would have been possible to post some advice (in green or even brown writing), explanation or even a warning.......A red card for a first offence is usually thought to be a little heavy.

As it was not abusive, could it have not safely been left on the forum, with an explanation as to why it was thought problematic?

If it was that it was just considered and judged to have been posted on the wrong part of the forum - why then was it not simply just placed in the right one?

This itself is questionable, as the post did contain a song or parody.

If it was because it was 'cut and pasted', could this 'guideline simply have been pointed out, rather than the post being deleted, without, explanation, advice or warning? Is this really the the way to treat guests that Max has invited to contribute to his site? This remains a guideline and that is perfectly sufficient. The vast majority of contributions do follow this guideline and because of this, the odd one that does appear is hardly too much of a problem. It is just another tool and sometimes this method is the only effective way of presenting information or starting or contributing to a debate and many posters are grateful for it. When our eagle-eyed volunteers miss it, anyway.

It is a bit like one guest excluding another from someone else's party, simply because they used the wrong fork. The editing action is just not proportionate to the problem and justifying the right for the volunteer not only to have taken the action but to post anonyomously to defend this, is simply not proportionate nor in the spirit of this forum. It looks to me, rather like control, for the sake of control by those that feel thay have the power to do so and have no intention of giving-up this power, no matter how divisive and unnecessary this is.

---

As stated above:
Actually, JoeClones delete posts only in certain limited circumstances. Usually, Jeff and I do that sort of editing. If Clones delete posts for other than duplications or technical reasons, they are supposed to report the deletion to Jeff or me, so we can review the decision.
In the situation in question, the JoeClone followed established procedure properly; and Jeff and I approved the decision to delete the thread, both because it was a lengthy non-music copy-paste message and because it was racist.

As to Dianavan's complaint: Yes, Martin Gibson's posts are often offensive. Occasionally, they are offensive enough that we decide to delete them. Usually, we don't delete posts just because they're offensive. We delete them because we think they will do harm. If we leave them up and have a nice little discussion about whether they will do harm or not, then the damage is done.

And whether Shambles likes it or not, we have decided that we will not allow ourselves to be used as a platform for racism, especially for anonymous racist statements from those who do not have the courage to identify themselves.

-Joe Offer-