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.
AbsentmindedNihilist, 19 Jun 2018 00:53
