PDA

View Full Version : Objection to post removal



saulgoode
January 11th, 2011, 04:22 AM
I wish to object to the removal of this post (only visible to staff) (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=10341840&postcount=1) in the Apple Pulls VLC from the App Store (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1662821) thread.

I fail to see anything objectionable in the following explanation and would appreciate feedback on why the post was removed.


The person who provides GPLed software to Apple is authorized to do so as long as that person meets the conditions of the license -- that is (in short) to say he ensures the source code is made available* and he does not place any additional restrictions upon the recipient, Apple.

If Apple chooses to distribute that code to anybody else then Apple is responsible for meeting those same conditions of the license. In particular, Apple may (likewise) not place any additional restrictions upon people receiving the software. The fault lies with Apple for failing to meet that condition (Apple's terms of service placed further restrictions upon the recipients of the GPLed software).

KiwiNZ
January 11th, 2011, 06:15 AM
The post was removed as it was posted after the closure notice and posted as the thread was closed. It would be unfair for the post to remain when rebuttal was not possible.

saulgoode
January 11th, 2011, 01:20 PM
The post was removed as it was posted after the closure notice and posted as the thread was closed. It would be unfair for the post to remain when rebuttal was not possible.
No less fair than leaving any post in a thread that is locked; precluding any possibility of rebuttal to those posts. If a moderator is to expend the time and effort of removing posts in a thread that can not be rebutted, I should think those which are so objectionable as to necessitate thread closure should be the first candidates, not posts that were courteous and respectful attempts at contributing to the discussion.

While I understand that my post was made simultaneous to the decision to close the thread (after Kiwinz's post was made but before the thread was actually locked), and I am no more personally chagrined than had I submitted my post after the thread had been locked, taking explicit action to remove a non-objectionable post while forgoing removal of objectionable posts sends the message that those who abide by the forum's rules and guidelines are somewhat less welcome to participate in these forums than those who do not.

I am relieved to hear that the content of my post was not deemed objectionable and I shouldn't mind that no remedial action be taken. Nonetheless, it would be nice if greater consideration was given to non-offenders as the staff attempts to mitigate problems caused by instances of poor behavior.

Joeb454
January 11th, 2011, 02:05 PM
No less fair than leaving any post in a thread that is locked; precluding any possibility of rebuttal to those posts. If a moderator is to expend the time and effort of removing posts in a thread that can not be rebutted, I should think those which are so objectionable as to necessitate thread closure should be the first candidates, not posts that were courteous and respectful attempts at contributing to the discussion.

I can see your point, however I think the point KiwiNZ was making is that regardless of whether the post is objectionable or not - if it is posted after a thread closure, as it was in this case, then it's unfair to leave it there. The post announcing the closure of a thread should be the last post in that thread.

saulgoode
January 11th, 2011, 11:43 PM
I can see your point, however I think the point KiwiNZ was making is that regardless of whether the post is objectionable or not - if it is posted after a thread closure, as it was in this case, then it's unfair to leave it there. The post announcing the closure of a thread should be the last post in that thread.
If posts are not to be evaluated on their merits, perhaps a good resolution to this particular issue would be to have a policy whereby moderators lock threads before they post their closing comment. I would assume this is possible with the VBulletin software.

While I imagine this race condition is a rare occurrence, whenever a thread is closed there is already the de facto unfairness of affording the "last word" to those whose misbehavior motivated the closure. In the larger scheme of things, it would seem worthwhile to take reasonable measures in order to avoid worsening this inequity.

bodhi.zazen
January 12th, 2011, 12:43 AM
If posts are not to be evaluated on their merits, perhaps a good resolution to this particular issue would be to have a policy whereby moderators lock threads before they post their closing comment. I would assume this is possible with the VBulletin software.

While I imagine this race condition is a rare occurrence, whenever a thread is closed there is already the de facto unfairness of affording the "last word" to those whose misbehavior motivated the closure. In the larger scheme of things, it would seem worthwhile to take reasonable measures in order to avoid worsening this inequity.

I am sorry, but there is indeed a difference between closing a thread for further comment and leaving previous posts.

This is obviously a rare occurrence, but I do not see the policy changing any time soon, ie threads will typically be closed with a closing comment from the staff.

Glitches either in timing of the post, timing of the closure, server hiccups, networking issues, acts of random electrons etc will probably result in the same action of staff - posts after closure will be jailed, sorry.

I think our current policy is equally unfair to all and I really do not see any need for a change.