Apparently it is not policy that obvious trolling, low-content, malicious posts should be deleted with screenshots kept on 05, even though to the best of my and several other staff member's knowledge this practice has been continued for quite some time. What defines malicious/low-content/trolling posts? Simple, use the same standards that we use to witness summary deletions on articles. Screenshots should be kept of the posts in question on 05. Any questions?
"Malicious content, such as links to viruses, sexually explicit material, spam, advertising, and illegal content are all grounds for summary deletion. If a member of Staff believes a page to fall into one of these categories, they will bring it up for consideration in the admin chat channel where, after review, if three members agree, the page may be summarily deleted. Copies may be retained for record-keeping purposes."
Our standards for summary page deletion should apply to trollposts. We should not leave blanked trollposts on places like the harassment policy, as that just leaves the trolls with a harmful legacy that would be instantly deleted in any other well-run forum on the internet.
I think that it should be left up to the discretion of the Disc team or forum crit, or the harassment team depending on the nature of the posts themselves. I think that if there is also an ongoing case then it might be prudent to blank posts and then delete them once a situation has been resolved. I have no problems with the general premise of the same principles we use to judge trolling articles being used for posts.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
I think that if there is also an ongoing case then it might be prudent to blank posts and then delete them once a situation has been resolved.
I feel like it could be good to use a similar approach to the ban policy? Three Disciplinary Committee members and/or admins voting in favor to delete a post or series of posts, after they've been blanked/quarantined. Emergency deletions can occur as necessary in the case of extremes, and retroactive votes can be applied then as necessary.
I don't know if we gain anything in particular from leaving troll posts up.
Prior discussion has indicated that there are concerns about accountability and paper trails. Others have noted that screenshots and a repository would help with that. It shouldn't be hard to create a repository. We just need people willing to maintain it.
I have been vocally in the "just fucking delete it" camp for a while, and remain in it. Leaving them up only makes the site that little bit nastier and gains us, pardon my French, jack shit.
A repository would be trivial to produce and maintain. Google Drive and Dropbox are good options where space will not be an issue; I am certain there are others as well. Permissions may need to be played with beyond my personal experience, but I strongly doubt that that is an insurmountable obstacle.
I'm fine with stating clearly that troll posts will be deleted, and making it our policy.
I support this.
Firstly, I would like a list of posts that have put this policy into practice informally. Please provide a timeline of how long this practice has been going on and the standard procedure by example. This is to provide appropriate provenance towards this proposal, and give people an idea of how it already works for those who may be less familiar.
That being said, I have concerns that what defines a low-content post is different from a low-content article. Low-content articles are usually articles that are incomplete. Low-content posts are usually shitcrit or one-word comments. The latter shouldn't be deleted in the way the former is, or if it is, then we need to discuss how forum crit handles low-effort posting. As far as I know, forum crit is not in the position to be deleting posts. This has broad-reaching changes from how we handle spammy posting and may change or be in addition to a revoking system. How should this be handled and what is the relationship between revoking from the site and deleting their posts? Is there existing precedent for this?
(In full clarity, I actually have almost no problems with removing trolling or otherwise inflammatory posts under the same guidelines as trolling or otherwise inflammatory articles. However, low-effort posts have also been highlighted in the original proposal, and thus must be addressed.)
Furthermore, I would also like to query who is in charge of determining if posts should be deleted. What is the role of disciplinary staff in post deletion? Should disciplinary staff have a vote to delete posts? Should all moderators be able to delete posts without further oversight from other staff members? In order to avoid inappropriate deletion, usually a certain number of witnesses are used. It is preferable that this is through disciplinary staff, but OS and non-disciplinary moderators have functioned suitably in a pinch. Will this be the same case here?
I would like to argue that while I agree with the general sentiment, I would like for further discussion to occur regarding low-effort posting. I have some concerns that a low-effort post is not appropriately defined in this context the way a low-effort page is, and may place undue burden and extra responsibility on teams whose primary work is addressing low-effort behaviors.
I would also like to ask if we are willing to accept that as a result of this, we have no way beyond doctorable images that we have removed posts and that the posts said what they said. If that is the case, then I have no further qualms. While I understand no staff member would actually do as such, I feel it is important that we look at how this will appear in the most negative possible light and evaluate whether or not it is "worth it".
TL;DR:
- We cannot determine how long or what the standard practice is without proof that this has become standard practice, and thus we need links to threads where this has already occurred.
- "Low content posting" has not been defined the way "low content pages" has been defined and has broad implications to forum crit, disciplinary teams, moderation, and non-disciplinary treatment as a whole. I would like this to be defined more clearly before this policy is in place.
- I am broadly in favor of removing posts deemed harmful to the SCP wiki community, so long as screenshots are taken appropriately, and threads made appropriately.
- Since we are moving to screenshots instead of linking the posts directly, staff should acknowledge and accept that a potential consequence is that we now have no defense other than "trust us" that no evidence is doctored to intentionally make a user look bad.
As a note of clarification, I would like to emphasize that I am in support of the general idea that certain posts should be deleted because they are harmful to the SCP wiki community. I am merely suggesting that a well-considered policy is put in place so that deleting posts will have foreseeable consequences that are addressed before they can become problems.
Living the dream, or dreaming the life?
Please provide a timeline of how long this practice has been going on and the standard procedure by example. This is to provide appropriate provenance towards this proposal
A quick 10 minute or so poking around the Disciplinary records and related Non-Disc threads gave me these:
- 17 Feb 2018 http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-5292021/non-disc-record-zanpio "Comment has since been deleted but has been copied over for record keeping purposes:"
- 28 Dec 2017 http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-4653608/disciplinary-minecraftswag420 (not explicitly stated, but the comment the user was banned for, posted to the It's an Anomalous World thread, no longer exists. I believe someone deleted it.)
- 26 April 2017 http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-2248073/disciplinary-ratlock "User posts have been deleted. Screenshots are available."
- 14 March 2015 (I skipped back several listed pages) http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-1147613/disciplinary-catthing "posted the following in a thread titled "d" of his own creation:" Said thread no longer exists.
Of note, a lot of the cases where I believe posts were deleted but that action was not outright stated included trolls deleting their own accounts. I can go digging further in the past if necessary, but given the thorough records we've been keeping, it shouldn't be too hard to find a couple more older cases.
I would also like to query who is in charge of determining if posts should be deleted.
Probably Disc Committee, or by admin fiat in case of emergency if there's a risk of a flame war erupting? Same with bans, pretty much.
I have some concerns that a low-effort post is not appropriately defined in this context the way a low-effort page is, and may place undue burden and extra responsibility on teams whose primary work is addressing low-effort behaviors.
I think kept simply, "if we permaban someone for such a comment, it's grounds for deletion of the comment". For cases of permaban due to accumulated behavioral issues and escalation, we would not need to delete those comments.
we have no way beyond doctorable images that we have removed posts and that the posts said what they said.
Given the current replies, it looks like staff is willing to accept this.
I’d like to play devil’s advocate for a moment here. What, exactly, would we have to gain from keeping obvious troll posts up? The only thing that really comes to mind is that, by keeping it up and blanking it, it can serve as an example of what not to do for newbies, and even then, that’s sort of a stretch.
I don’t see anything that we could benefit from by leaving troll posts up that we can’t already do by just screenshotting the offending post.
Delete 'em all.
Admin, SCP Wiki