Share this content

Annoying deleting of posts?

.

Didn't find your answer?

Why do the mods insist on removing the whole of a post when someone has made a complaint about one or two or the words used therein?    Surely they can moderate the offending bit out but leave the gist of the rest of the response.  Not only does removal of the whole response then make further responses look utterly ridiculous/nonsensical in most cases, but it is punishing someone for what could otherwise be relevant comments. Or worse, not retaining the background history of the really offensive people,  so that folk can check their profiles before deciding whether to respond or not, which quite a few folk on here now do.

Case in point today was the eventual removal of several of the comments by the video man, one of which included him of  accusing a responsdent of  ''d**k-swinging''.  Had that been his only comment on the whole thread/forum to date, then he asked a further question in a month's time, no-one would realise what kind of poster they were deadling with. Had the mods just starred out the vile part in ''   '' above,   then we could all easily take a guess in the future at exactly what we are likely to face in responding to such folk.        (I know in this case there is enough of his ridiculousness still lurking, but that isnt always the case and to be honest I havent got the time today to find a better example)

Its unneccessary and a pointless removal of posts.  

In addition had that been a regular responder,  with at least 3 moderations required in just one thread, then they would have been banned.   But worse than that in his case is that the moderators said they had reviewed the thread and decided to close it, but this whilst the quote above had still been left in place! It doesnt seem that it been reviewed, it just looked like they are reacting to reports on individual posts. 

Ive just had a post moderated for saying 'stupid girl'  on a post from a third party,   rather than a post from the girl in question.  Girl = maybe I should have said 'woman'.   Stupid - definiton =  'lacks common sense'  therefore factually correct according to the evidence as presented.  OK, had the woman herself posted, I would not probably not called her a 'stupid girl'   #   as she didnt can someone else really take offense at a factual comment even when we are talking about a 3rd party? So we are not able to be forthright?    Perhaps I should have used the phase, 'what the girl did was (a bit) stupid'  unless that is that also against guidelines? 

 #Certainly had she posted herself /been a potential client she would be left under no illusions that what she did was totally lacking common sense and that she needs to get a grip.  Trying to dig someone out of their self made mess without them taking any responsbility for it is also (a bit) stupid. No wonder people do not learn life lessons these days.

 

 

 

 

Replies (47)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Tax Dragon
15th Nov 2021 17:49

My favourite deletion was of one of my posts which was 100% technical, 0% personal, 0% offensive and was c80% a quote from a judge in a tax case. Sorry, m'lud, you can't say that in here.

To be fair, the deletion may have been collateral damage, as the post I was replying to was also deleted. But the reply to my (/the judge's) post remains. Go figure.

(While we're being fair, the OP you refer to might not have been the sole culprit for the way that thread developed. People gave him the oxygen of responding. Just stop talking. What do you... we... anyone gain from carrying it on?)

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Leywood
15th Nov 2021 18:00

[quote=Tax Dragon] ''My favourite deletion was of one of my posts which was 100% technical, 0% personal, 0% offensive and was c80% a quote from a judge in a tax case. Sorry, m'lud, you can't say that in here. ''

I missed that one. That is so much worse!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Leywood:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
15th Nov 2021 19:55

I was simultaneously annoyed and amused. (It's actually a far better illustration of your valid point than the ones you have used. Of course I can't show you it... it's not there anymore!)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By jonharris999
15th Nov 2021 17:52

It is hard for me to imagine circumstances in which the phrase "stupid girl" could ever legitimately be described as "factual comment". It is no such thing. It is a quite deliberate and obvious misogynist trope.

My experience of your posts is that you have very sound accountancy knowledge and frequently make very valuable contributions to this forum - but if you really can't see what was wrong with this, you should research the matter some more.

Thanks (2)
Replying to jonharris999:
avatar
By Leywood
15th Nov 2021 17:58

[quote=jonharris999] ''obvious misogynist trope.''

Interesting. As a middle aged, or more to the point probably classed as getting on a bit, female, I still refer to myself as a girlie.

But noted.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Leywood:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
15th Nov 2021 18:11

If you are of the female persuasion you will get some slack (see also use of the 'n' word) but of course we don't know your gender on here.

But generally calling someone "stupid" with a gendered remark (especially demeaning a woman by referring to them as a child) is going to get you a ruler in most of life these days on here or elsewhere especially if you might be male.

Might sound OK to you, but it sounds pretty misogynistic to most ears. And if you are Dominic Raab, so would be "you stupid boy Dominic".

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/06/dominic-raab-confuses-m...

Of course "you go girl" is seen as empowering. And you might well go out for a "girls night out", as I might go to the pub "with the boys" with no offence given or taken. Why is language to hard? I am glad I haven't modded a forum for years its a fools errand.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Leywood:
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
16th Nov 2021 10:57

You go girl!

Fellow columnists, Leywood and many more of us hail from a golden age in which one could call a spade a spade and nobody took the slightest offence: an age of innocence, where being gay often involved a picnic (with lashings and lashings of ginger beer); LSD meant pounds, shillings and pence; and going all the way meant staying on the bus till the terminus.

Misogyny was almost the order of the day: those girls (women) whose husbands allowed them to work were rewarded with two-third salaries; those whose husbands permitted them to drive the family car were invariably pilloried for their lack of driving skills; and husbands were sometimes encouraged to clock their spouses just to keep them in line.

That's just the way it was, which is why you must make allowances for our lack of modern day P.C.

Thanks (1)
Replying to jonharris999:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
16th Nov 2021 06:56

Misogeny is single direction and defined as hate
Inpossible to identify without knowing the person who makes the comment

Thanks (0)
My photo
By Matrix
15th Nov 2021 19:29

Is that the post that uses the term young lady? Am I allowed to say that sounds condescending and is not a generally used term?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Matrix:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
16th Nov 2021 07:02

Generally used term in place of the word girl
Schools use the term all the time
So in context of the thread, very valid comment given that the self employment was "years ago"

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Tax Dragon
15th Nov 2021 19:49

At the risk of being confrontational/controversial, what annoys me far more than Sift's removal of irrelevant, abusive posts on irrelevant, unhelpful threads is this: the contribution to this 'community' that many of the people who get agitated by those posts/the OPs who make them is limited - or largely limited - to that 'policing' of those OPs. Seriously, what does that add to anyone's lives/the improvement of the forum? Why can't we all agree just to make positive contributions? A negative response to a negative post does not a positive make. Better, IMO, not to respond at all. (Sure, I snark occasionally, but I don't go on and on. And on.)

(Whilst I'm unburdening, I also find posts that say, in effect, "I don't know what tax law says, but I'm going to guess that it says this" no better, arguably worse, than not responding. So maybe the silence of the Aweb police on such technical threads is to be welcomed. Maybe I'm therefore arguing against myself - bemoaning the absence of contributions as soon as a section number is mentioned but saying not responding is better than fatuity. Hey, don't expect logic. I'm just a stupid girl.)

Thanks (4)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
15th Nov 2021 22:32

"I'm just a stupid girl" - or as Mick'n'Keef put it 55 years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBZOL21sehU

How things have changed (although possibly not Sir Mick's attitude) ... but I agree, responders (myself definitely included) should try to restrict ourselves to comments that add something positive.
Trouble is even when you do this (as I did on the now closed thread that led to this post), it tends to be picked up and used as ammunition by someone else with an axe to grind.

Frankly I'd have thought that all the axes were by now honed to perfection, so should be put back in their cases and only brought out on ceremonial days. I'm seriously contemplating a New Year resolution to find a life elsewhere.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
16th Nov 2021 02:47

Hugo Fair wrote:

I'm seriously contemplating a New Year resolution to find a life elsewhere.

Aweb, flawed as it is, is helping keep me sane at stupid o'clock atm. Collapse of the facade notwithstanding. (And yes this time will pass. Though whether in time for New Year's and resolutions may be another matter.)

On my point here, I'm sure most contributors mean well. And Sift's fabled 'community' must mean bants etc is part of the backdrop - not every post has to have a section number (or FRS reference, or similar), even in the narrow mind of Tax Dragon. (Actually if it was, I'm not sure the forum would keep the madness at bay so well.)

But that thread got soooo tiresome. OP played the crowd for fools, is how I saw it. Got what he wanted and had a laugh at their expense to boot. As often happens, in fact, with 'those' threads.

Re Mick etc... maybe ireally has a point - not so bad when sung by someone of the female persuasion?https://youtu.be/2GhPUAVgHZc

Thanks (2)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
16th Nov 2021 12:17

Glad you made the connection ... the (different) song of the same name from 30 years later shows major progress in society - but then it would with our Shirl in magnificent form.

And yes I agree that the OP (of moderated thread) was playing people - which is why when I gave him what he claimed to crave (a simple direct answer) in an attempt to bring things to a close, it was brushed aside.

I'm perfectly happy with the mix of serious reference-based inquisition alongside more general questions of policy/opinion (and occasional puerile humour for which I'm prepared to take a bow) ... but investing effort, in trying to determine when a poster has 'an angle' or a purely antagonistic streak, is too much like hard work and will eventually drive away more 'volunteer' responders.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Paul Crowley
16th Nov 2021 07:05

It is now better than it was
In the past the post and all replies were wiped off the slate
I suggested several times that replace the bad post with the word moderated and leave replies would be an improvement, both in postings and PMs to moderators.
So it is better than it was

Moderation is not active. Genuinely offensive and deliberately deprecating comments will forever remain as moderation only happens when reported.

Most of us have hard skin and consider the insult or offensive behavior is best left in place as it says more about poster than person insulted exactly as you have expressed above
If all the bankers get their offending posts deleted then the their record is also swept clean, so that they can do it all over again

Noted that the offending poster still has a live account so it is clear that the newbie banker gets better treatment to those that keep Any Answers active and worthwhile

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
16th Nov 2021 09:19

Active and worthwhile. I mean, I don't disagree with your sentiments at all. And yes if any of 'us' behaved like some of 'them', we'd be serving time (if that's how you see not being able to post). But, while that thread was undeniably active, how much of it was remotely worthwhile? And I think you're right - it's an "and" (active and worthwhile), not an or that makes AA in any sense valuable.

My question to you is simple: Once it's clear (which in that thread took about 3 posts) that it's not going to be worthwhile, why keep a thread active? You do as much as anyone in that regard. Why?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
16th Nov 2021 09:40

In real life if I have a client with understanding difficulties I explain in as many different ways as possible what the issues are, and any failure to grasp the issues by client really is down to me to keep re-explaining until understood.
I have quite a few that bring in the other half or a parent, which I encourage as two people listening can result in one getting the point even when the other does not.
My belief is that Op person could only see yes and no, had never been to see an accountant and would have acted in a simple manor
The Op as in posting showed willful lack of understanding
Subsequent postings showed he had not got a clue and did not understand what was being posted by respondents
Would it be better that he was taxed on stupidity?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
16th Nov 2021 10:27

Paul Crowley wrote:

Would it be better that he was taxed on stupidity?

Well, yes, in his case.

But no way was he stupid. Demonstrating a 'wilful lack of understanding' is not being stupid. Played you all for fools, as I see it.

But even if he was actually stupid, best thing for him would be to hire an accountant. Letting him believe he can get answers for free in here (which is what he does now believe) and have fun into the bargain by winding people up while getting the answers for free just encourages him NOT to get an accountant. And potentially to come back here for more of the same... Or is that what you think this forum is for? Advising should-be but don't wannabe clients.

Thanks (2)
Replying to SteveHa:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
16th Nov 2021 09:24

Good one

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
16th Nov 2021 10:16

+1

Thanks (0)
Replying to SteveHa:
avatar
By David Ex
16th Nov 2021 12:27

SteveHa wrote:

https://pics.me.me/thumb_whats-the-magic-word-to-get-what-you-want-im-61...

Prefer the original undoctored version!

Thanks (0)
Replying to David Ex:
By SteveHa
16th Nov 2021 15:56

Please share :)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By bernard michael
16th Nov 2021 09:49

Welcome to the world of "woke"

I wonder if that'll be removed ??

Thanks (0)
Replying to bernard michael:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
16th Nov 2021 10:31

Better a world of woke than the backwoods of bigotry.

Thanks (6)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By cathygrimmer
16th Nov 2021 10:51

Absolutely. The more I see the right wing press use the word 'woke' as an insult, the happier I am to say I am woke!

Thanks (1)
Replying to bernard michael:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
16th Nov 2021 11:58

Being Woke is only an insult in the Telegraph Bernard.

its a bit like "liberal" being used an an insult in the US, when I would be insulted if anyone thought I was not liberal.

Thanks (0)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
16th Nov 2021 18:13

Agree
Trouble is UK readers read USA internet and hang on their coat tails
Woke is or was something to be proud of in the USA
But USA abused it

Patriotic has the same abuse
USA Patriots killed more native americans and american born citizens than British soldiers despite the fact that at the time the "patriots" were British and were rebels guilty of treason
The same people then claim that the confederacy was not allowed to declare UDI and the confederacy were the real rebels of their claimed new country
Pot kettle black

But I love Americans, just the same as Al Murray
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRa0wxNP5E0

Thanks (0)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
16th Nov 2021 18:01

Just a thought
Is Republican or Tory an insult?
Or is it just an insult if it goes the other way?
Reason I ask is the proud wearing by some of Tory scum badges

Thanks (0)
By Duggimon
16th Nov 2021 10:27

"stupid" is a value judgement and as such is always an opinion and never factual. It might be closer to factual if it's a fixed act or phrase you're referring to but if referring to a person it's never factual.

Your comment of "stupid girl" could not possibly be factual. Not everyone who does stupid things is stupid and conflating one with the other helps nobody and risks offence, though moderation of the term might be going a bit far.

Worse than all that though it makes you look like a bit of a dick*

*this part is a fun reference to the other thread and not actually true, I don't think you're a dick , I love everyone who posts on here very much and think you're all smashing.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Duggimon:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
16th Nov 2021 18:05

Lots of things by intelligent people are stupid, even if it is hindsight
Does not stop it being stupid in the eyes of onlookers
Onlookers are entitled to an opinion

Thanks (0)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
16th Nov 2021 10:55

Looks like when my LPs are collected from Sweden I will need to go through them with a black highlighter pen, sorry Billy but the one from Uptown now needs edited given its class overtones.

Beatles, I am sorry, Girl now needs to be Woman, oops , Lennon did that already in his solo career.

Then again will Mott the Hoople be in trouble with the Dudes reference, might get away with just Dudes but the Young bit conjoined is possibly beyond the pale.

And when we get to film we then have Jimmy Stewart in that Christmas classic, the Buffalo adjective is so obviously about weight it needs deleted.

Then back to Marvell and His Coy Mistress, certainly now a no no, objectifying women, totally disgraceful

And as for my former neighbour and FP of my school, Ms Manson, Shirley, you ought to be thoroughly ashamed of the "Stupid Girl" title, sorry, just because you are employing irony does not make it okay.

Frankly I am fed up watching my tongue, there is really no fun when you can now insult someone without even trying.

Thanks (1)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
16th Nov 2021 12:54

The rewriting of history, expunging anything that would 'offend' if said or done today, is IMHO regrettable. Worse than that, it could do real damage in a democracy. Forget about Hitler, get another Hitler kind of thing.

Maybe Colston shouldn't still have a statue, but he was a generous benefactor - no-one ever seems to suggest giving the money back. And… well, I will get thrown out if I actually complete this sentence, which I find ridiculous, but I will self-censor anyway, Guy Gibson's dog was called

And that's just a fact. An historic fact.

But you've fallen for Bernard's decoy ploy. Wokeness don't come into this discussion. Matey boy in 'that thread' was deliberately and genuinely rude and offensive. That's against forum rules and Sift say they will delete such posts. They are thus entirely justified in so doing. IMHO.

(But what the judge said that deserved deletion still escapes me.)

(Oh PS - my link above was to Shirley's song. I hope that when Mum used to play it to me, she too was employing irony. Though that was probably lost on me at the time.)

Edit: talking of the regrettability of rewriting history, I have rewritten this post slightly. I'm not offended by the dog's name, but I think others would be entitled to be offended. So I have deleted the "inoffensive" adjective I had used to describe it. But - a bit like Hugo's "Stupid Girl" song point - I think we have to accept history as it comes to us, offensive or otherwise. I reserve my right to be offended by what I learn, but I still want to learn it.

And history informs. For example, citizens of other countries know more about the British Empire than we Brits do. It informs their understanding of the present. We have 'forgotten'. And our understanding of the present is lessened as a result. (Or... see Mr Clue's comment above.)

Thanks (1)
avatar
By legerman
16th Nov 2021 11:32

It was rather amusing, because the moderator censored that comment completely, and all we saw was "this comment has been removed" but someone had quoted him underneath so I saw the comment anyway!

TD is probably right when she said that he was playing us, and I got that impression reading the thread (which wasn't until after it was closed).

However, if he was genuinely wound up, nothing said would have appeased him. Even after he was given the a direct link to the answer (I agree the first reply would have given him the answer had he followed it through) he only off handedly acknowledged the poster.

However, and I so wanted to add it to the thread, it would have been hard to convince HMRC to deregister so soon, as I know from experience. They want to see a pattern of under the threshold months first.

But the *correct* answer was given multiple times, and had the OP took a step back he would (hopefully) have seen it, and that was not to register in the first place,informing HMRC that it was a one off. That said, the OP hadn't reached the threshold at that point, so presumably his earlier excellent months would have been replace by newer months that weren't as excellent, ergo no need to register anyway.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Tax Dragon
16th Nov 2021 12:57

Oh the irony.

I've had a comment deleted on this thread.

I was adding this edit to a now-lost post:

Talking of the regrettability of rewriting history, I have rewritten this post slightly. I'm not offended by the name, but I think others would be entitled to be offended. So I have deleted the "inoffensive" adjective. But - a bit like Hugo's "Stupid Girl" song point - I think we have to accept history as it comes to us, offensive or otherwise. I reserve my right to be offended by what I learn, but I want to learn it nonetheless.

History informs. For example, citizens of other countries know more about the British Empire than we Brits do. It informs their understanding of the present. We have 'forgotten'. And our understanding of the present is lessened as a result.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
By SteveHa
16th Nov 2021 16:00

Your "Lost post" is still there :/

Thanks (0)
Replying to SteveHa:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
16th Nov 2021 17:03

Lost and found. (Not "still there", more "there again".) Saves me having to try to reconstruct the post... I realised reposting the edit (close enough) without the original post was pointless.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
16th Nov 2021 19:27

Confused
Was it really deleted or was it delayed?
Your comment suggests a repost

If so then moderation is a bit daft. I would expected the anticipated word to be starred out straight away on original posting given the number of stars for sensible British words that are somehow not liked by the USA

Gash was one that the Yanks did not like (WW2 vintage, Dad served on an MTB then ships), used by the Royal Navy to to mean rubbish, surplus to requirements or just plain spare
Edit It survived the the word monitor

Thanks (1)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
16th Nov 2021 20:05

Confused? Me too.

Last time it happened, the comment had gone for good. (And it's not just me - I know Basil has had the same issue.) Mind you, last time I described it as a vaporisation, not a deletion. That was more apposite. I apologise for my less apposite description this time.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
16th Nov 2021 20:15

The pinks seemed to have stopped, as in delayed postings.
Cannot remember the last time I had a Vaporisation

Thanks (2)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
16th Nov 2021 20:42

I thought it was just me having an (occasional) touch of the vapours.
It's the way that the offending item just disappears (in a virtual puff of smoke but without warning or sound) leaving you doubting whether or not you posted it!

I have visions of these poor orphaned posts wandering aimlessly in a featureless desert of bits'n'bytes ... crying out for recognition or at least attention.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
16th Nov 2021 20:56

I now concentrate on posting
yellow not done
blue means button pressed, and it can take an age if not instant.
usually go to something else as a second press means duplication and watched kettle etc

I did have one disappear fairly recently. Had forgotten it until writing this in detail
The post button stayed blue for over an hour and it is either in the land of the undead or the blue was untruthful

The button goes blue before pressing, the mouse makes it blue but move the mouse off and a failed press means it goes back to yellow again

Thanks (1)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
16th Nov 2021 21:58

The hung posting is a different issue. Can be a dodgy connection - I've also had posts duplicate just because of a break in connection.

The vaporise-on-edit is what it says on the tin. I had posted the comment, thought better of it, went to edit it as described above, then poof! and it was gone.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
17th Nov 2021 01:48

Based on that description I have never had the vapours
I too sometimes post then shortly after do a rewrite
Sometimes with the embarrassment that a thanks happens during rewrite, so that prior no thank but on repost the thank is instant.
Do not usually change a thanked posting other than spell or granmmar correction

Thanks (1)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
17th Nov 2021 02:14

Basil has described exactly the same thing - and his comments (like mine, previous times this has happened) did not come back, lost to the mists of time (see what I did there?)

What's confused me this time is that the comment has reappeared (condensed?)

Did you ever see The Fly, The Remake of The Fly, The Fly 2, the Simpsons rip-off of The Fly or Back to The Future with Marty McFly?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Leywood
18th Nov 2021 11:30

Thank you for all the replies, sorry Im not responding properly, am still mid mur-dering clients, its my silly season now so I can take January off (right, like that ever happens).

I often call myself a 'stupid girl', so if I am going to try to stop saying about others I should probably stop saying it about myself.

I have no doubt I will continue to act stupidly occasionally but at least I clear up my own garbage. Some will act really stupidly and then others come along and try to wipe their backsides instead of teaching them to deal with their messes. Fortunately in some ways, people acting stupidly means we can make loads of wonga. As long as its only a one off, or maybe two. More and they become a PITA client with a disengagement letter.

Great to see this thread meander about a bit covering a couple of recent threads, including the foot stamper who eventually got his won way, as well as sifts shortcomings. Shame someone from Sift hasnt bothered to respond to my query, but we all know there is little appetite to make this forum more user friendly, that there appears to be no real control over what the developers do.

Now you come to mention it, Ive not seen any pinks for a while.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Leywood:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
18th Nov 2021 12:59

Maybe there was a software enhancement that transformed a pink fill into a transparent fill (that only the mods can see)?

Thanks (1)
Share this content