|Home / Off-Topic|
P.F. Administration Deleting and Re Writing Posts
20 Jan 2018 #22
The level of idiocy (in Poland? maybe everywhere) has peaked. A banned from all other social networks person who has still been allowed to post thousands of messages here has the guts to complain that some of his posts are edited. Then another simpleton (they walk in pairs) is outraged that a post can be edited. Same simpleton must be posting on Facebook or Twitter not knowing that her posts are shadow-banned and visible only to her. Crow is right on that.
It's also astonishing how billions of Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, Twitter users are completely fine with shadow banning (maybe thinking to themselves that if the Big Brother considers their opinions dangerous, abusive, stupid, or useless then they have the right to censor them without even informing them and their "friends" that they are banned). Most people like to be slaves; otherwise, they would not be using these Big Brother tools and platforms. Too bad that those who come here try to bring the same ideas. Freedom is not free and one should learn how to use it properly. Yelling at those you don't agree with is not proper use of freedom.
when I saw the post I didn't think it looked like something Jonny would write.
That's because he didn't write it. If you copy and paste Johnny's post into Google, you will see that it comes from Reuters, Daily Mail etc who are all reporting the same story in more or less the same words. I know for a fact that Johnny regularly copy/pastes from the internet, often not even providing a link. If someone does this on PF or any website, they have to abide with copyright law and keep within a word limit. If you read PF rule #11, members are allowed to copy 100 direct words, if they copy more, the post can be deleted or edited. My best guess at what's happened in this particular instance is that mods cropped his overlong post in accordance with the rules along with his personal opinion, as there are about 100 words now left in that post , so he decided to whine about it as he did about his thousands of 'deleted' posts that are actually in Polanda.
The other alternative is to believe that a mod, for no logical reason, decided to read the news and select a piece about said war criminal, and copy it into Johnny's post. Er, why would anyone bother?
What Admin has written in red on Idem's post #20 is truthful:
NOBODY IS ALTERING PEOPLE'S POSTS UNLESS IT'S A TOPIC TITLE ADJUSTMENT OR A VULGAR WORD.
Those were the only instances when I used to edit posts.
I know for a fact that Johnny regularly copy/pastes from the internet, often not even providing a link.
Johnny's text, after being edited, doesn't state any source either.
If you read PF rule #11, members are allowed to copy 100 direct words, if they copy more, the post can be deleted or edited.
that mods cropped his overlong post in accordance with the rules along with his personal opinion, as there are about 100 words now left in that post.
It's an interesting theory, although I've seen Johnny's original post and if real, it actually has less words that the edit [original = 102 words. Edit = 107 words]. So the text wasn't edited to make it shorter and is still over 100 words either way. I can post what he says that he originally wrote if you want to see it. If mods feel this is false, they could always post what it is they believe he initially wrote [his version has no vulgarity, just a one sentence opinion at the end of the piece of information].
I'm not saying I think there is a moderator conspiracy against him, but if his original text had no vulgarity and hasn't been shorted, then it seems to make no sense to have edited it, other than just to take out his opinion at the end. I think, just like there are blocks of red text in people's posts here, to show moderators comments, it should have been made clear that it was edited, or if something vulgar was supposedly taken out, then it should have been mentioned too. You know like 'edited for profanity' or 'edited to shorten copy and pasted text' or something like that. This transparency makes it obvious what is going on and avoids a situation [like we have] where people on the forum feel they are being unfairly targeted.
someone writes a good post but adds "f**ck" or other vulgarities to the post
Given that abuse is supposed to result in warnings being given, if abuse is bad enough for you to feel the need to edit a post, why don't you also give a warning to the poster?
A certain moderator thinks that even posting his name is sufficient reasons to hand out a ban but you believe that calling somebody a "f*cking moron" should only result in the post being given an invisible edit. Why not even give some red lettered advice to that poster? The moderator who can't be named thinks that putting four quotes in a post in the bin warrants a one-week ban but you instead edit people's posts to remove the fourth quote. Is a little consistency too much to ask for?
You again make it very clear why you have received so many alerts from other posters (which will result in your permanent ban of all past and future accounts). You claim something that is completely false (that we don't give warnings for posting abusive words) and then you continue with the fabricated assumption as if it was true. You do it on a daily level and if you go on with this, expect the final solution. We can understand that it can be very frustrating for other posters to deal with such dishonest posts and we will make sure to prevent it in the future. You receive a warning for abusing the intellect.
You claim something that is completely false (that we don't give warnings for posting abusive words)
If you do not give warnings for posting abusive words, how do you explain the lack of any warnings this user has polishforums.com/index.php?action=userinfo&user=54392 ?
In this post polishforums.com/life/poland-last-bastion-europe-81842/#msg1606249 he calls another poster a "bloody moron", which is both abusive and vulgar, but for some reason the post was not edited, the post was not binned and no warning was given. Would you like to explain why that is, given that you say that stating warnings are not given for posting abusive words "is completely false"?
We can understand that it can be very frustrating for other posters to deal with such dishonest posts
As I've just shown, my post was in no way dishonest: I have linked to a post which is abusive and vulgar for which no warning was given.
You receive a warning for abusing the intellect.
Now that I've demonstrated my statement was completely true, will you be removing that warning?
I have linked to a post which is abusive and vulgar for which no warning was given
Well that was the Polish Ultra And I believe that I made a true and appropriate comment, but hey why should I feel the need to defend myself, as Vincent has told me I am no angel on this forum, and he's right. If the cap fits wear it and all that.
Well that was the Polish Ultra And I believe that I made a true and appropriate comment
You may very well be correct in saying that. However, the claim by admin that stating warnings are not given for posting abusive words "is completely false" is demonstrably untrue. I don't know why the admin wants to lie to us.
I don't think he lies, he probably takes into account the views of the other mods (All good leaders do this) before taking important actions or decisions, sometimes its worth time to stop and think about ones own words and actions before attacking the many who are screaming out facts that are falling on deaf ears, as I said before sometimes it's important to listen to the good advice of your peers, it has always held me in good stead.
All the best for the future Harry I wish you no illl.
Hitler was not Polish if you didn't know that.
I'm not at all sure that excuses anyone, either Polish or any other nationality, from not avoiding the expression. There are much better ways to make a point than using a particularly emotionally loaded phrase that any reader would associate with the Holocaust.
'm not at all sure that excuses anyone,
Those are only words, that out of context can mean anything. If people are obsessed with holocaust and Hitler that is their problem. I give no quarters to individuals who would like you to tell other people what expressions and words they should or shouldn't use.
A person like you who have no problem with a genocide of babies. Support it and think it is a good thing shouldn't be so squeamish when it comes to some more or less random turn of a phrase. Unless you don't care about it all but only use this opportunity to flash your brilliance for all to see ah and to try to order people about.