question

[WolfWhistle]

how do I get posts deleted after the window of opportunity to edit or delete has closed?

Do they actually answer RTMs? Are the RTMs the report post icon (exclamation point in the red triangle)?

[SpiceItUp]

In general, the short answer is that you don't. "You post it, you own it" is the phrase that's used around here. Moderators are not permitted to remove content from view except under very specific circumstances.

And yeah, every RTM submitted is looked at by the moderator staff. Typically you won't hear anything back unless it requires follow up but each o e is given its due consideration and action taken where warranted.

-Spice

[WolfWhistle]

I think some posts should be deleted once they become too personal for public disclosure and subsequently become fodder for drama.

Why even have RTMs if the moderators have their hands tied in the matter because of some implied agreement not to do anything?

[SpiceItUp]

Its not implied, it's an explicit part of the rules that moderators ourselves are bound by. If you RTMd something I'll take a look and see if it qualifies.

-Spice

[WolfWhistle]

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp;1057235910[COLOR=red

explicit part of the rules that... see if it qualifies.[/COLOR]

-Spice

Where are those explicit rules that you are bound by? I would like to read them for myself.

[Pistolero]

I did not think you had ever read the guidelines.


#22 - ECCIE Staff will go to great lengths to avoid editing, deleting, or censoring our members posts or threads...unless absolutely necessary. Forbidden topics such as underage sex, illicit drugs, bestiality, revealing personal info, medical speculation, or images not in compliance will be removed from public view. Controversial, troublesome, or objectionable posts may draw staff attention or in some cases disciplinary action, but the offending post will not be removed from the view of our membership in any but the most extreme cases. Often times you will find directions, footnotes, or other guidance from staff edited INTO posts which draw our attention. These are for the purpose of educating the readers of what is and what is not acceptable as well as informing others about how these issues have been dealt with. Members are encouraged to RTM posts which include rule infractions or objectionable material if it appears that staff has not already becomed involved with the thread or post in particular.
Note: Staff will consider a request from the original poster to remove a thread/post they have made provided it was recently posted and not replied to. As a general rule, staff will not consider such requests once a thread or post has been visible for at least 4 hours or received 2 or more replies. In these cases, a request from the OP to lock the thread is more appropriate and will receive consideration.

[WolfWhistle]

Originally Posted by Pistolero

#22 revealing personal info....will be removed from public view.
Note: Staff will consider a request from the original poster to remove a thread/post they have made provided it was recently posted and not replied to. As a general rule, staff will not consider such requests once a thread or post has been visible for at least 4 hours or received 2 or more replies.

Ok, "personal info" about a person(s) was revealed which makes it an automatic removal from public view. However, the note states that this particular rule is negated just by having the original post replied to and having been visible for at least 4 hours. So someone else besides that of the OP, if he is not permitted, has to make an official complaint about having personal info revealed in order for the automatic removal rule to kick in?

[SpiceItUp]

You misunderstand what is meant by "personal info". It does not mean discussions about things that are personal in nature. It means personally identifying information, such as a person who accidentally signs their name at the end of a post or mentions where they work. See Guideline #20 for more examples. We're then allowed to remove that info for them.

[WolfWhistle]

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

See Guideline #20 for more examples. We're then allowed to remove that info for them.

I am reading number 20 of the forum guidelines but there is no mention of "more examples."

[SpiceItUp]

Sorry I meant GL#5, my bad.

#5 - Outing or threats of outing are taken seriously. Membership here is anonymous and for the privacy of our members it will remain that way. That means any effort or attempt to connect a person's real world information to their username on this board will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. This includes real names, employment, medical info, addresses past or present, images, criminal or driving record, etc. We expect everyone who participates here to respect and go to great lengths to protect the anonymity and privacy of one another. Reckless disregard or accidental outing will also be taken very seriously.

[WolfWhistle]

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

connect a person's real world information to their username... addresses past or present....criminal or driving record, etc.

The original post included not the actual physical address but the name of the town of the residency and also included an arrest that was driving-related and another offense not named. That sounds like "personal info" to me.

[SpiceItUp]

Originally Posted by WolfWhistle

The original post included not the actual physical address but the name of the town of the residency and also included an arrest that was driving-related and another offense not named. That sounds like "personal info" to me.

Let me get this straight. You are making the argument that you intentionally revealed personal info about a provider in one of your posts?

You do realize that a GL#5 violation is pretty much the most heinous thing you can do and carries a lengthy ban as the penalty?

Fortunately for you neither of those things you mention are enough to qualify, for either removal or a ban. Even if they were, only the offending portion would be removed not the entire post.

-Spice

[WolfWhistle]

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

Let me get this straight. You are making the argument that you intentionally revealed personal info about a provider in one of your posts?

Like you say, I have to own up to my post. But I wouldn't say that I intentionally tried to do anything but to be honest. This honesty could have violated some of the forum rules.