Posted by Rick [Rick] on November 03, 1999 at 19:20:58 {eZOTANvCI67ajbiu2wnkFMFBt36Xyc}:
In Reply to: *Let's Cut to the Chase posted by Gedanken on November 03, 1999 at 16:04:19:
I won't defend the brother who helps administer the H2O site for having tried to help our brother, except that without his help we might not even be open. However, I will defend his interpretation of the FPP that moderators exercise with their own wise discretion:
PARTICIPANTS AGREE TO THE REMOVAL OF ANY POSTS NOT IN ACCORD WITH FPP AND GIVE H2O SOLE DISCRETION IN THIS REGARD. I AGREE TO KEEP BACKUP COPIES OF POSTS I WRITE OR REFRAIN FROM BACKING UP MY POSTS AT MY OWN RISK. H2O IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DATA LOSS ON ITS SITE, OR DATA LOSS DUE TO POST REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH FPP.
First, moderators have sole discretion to remove posts. Administrators are able to delete posts directly. No policies have been in place, as of yet, to address the use of moderator tools versus directly removing posts from the server.
To avoid using multiple screen names to deceive others. A maximum of two separate screen names per visitor to H2O is considered acceptable use, provided that the second screen name is used to express views one would fear to express using the first screen name. Upon disovery of a participant using more than two screen names, moderators shall delete posts under the additional screen name(s) at their sole discretion based on trying to enforce the spirit of this site's policies. Upon receiving a warning to cease using more than two screen names, H2O reserves the right to ban participants who persist.
The second screen name in question was not in harmony with this part of the FPP on the topic(s) in question.
Notice there is no FPP provision for providing posts that were deleted a critical path into the deleted bin, after which deletions aged over 1 week cease to exist. The administrator, having bypassed the moderator tools (which rename posts to 123456.deleted.m##.html filename convention for automatic "sweep" into deleted bin) performed the Unix rm -f filename command (translated: forcibly remove the filename given). After a file is forcibly removed, the system causes it to "unlink" and provides no further read access. The administrator in question had additional security concerns regarding the posts that it is not prudent to publicize (and was cited as the reason for not posting a citation to avoid exaserbating issues related to these concerns, in his admitted hoping the posts' disappearance would be quietly overlooked). Considering that technically he didn't violate any portion of the FPP (as no method of deletion is indicated; and no requirement a file must hit the deleted bin, i.e., a file of pornographic content is forcibly removed; and that a file cannot hit the deleted bin unless removed using moderator tools), and considering his circumstances (little time to volunteer to keep a huge site open that might otherwise close), well, what can I say?
> Since, in itself, it violated no FPP standards (as far as I can tell) then it, and its attendant Replies, should be restored.
As far as you can tell. Closer inspection of the FPP shows that its spirit overall was maintained in making a most difficult decision.
Rest assured that I do not take this situation lightly, but my back is to the wall in juggling this site with other responsibilities, while trying to run interference with these issues that keep cropping up! I feel like the man with 10 balls in the air, one in each hand, and one balanced on his nose in front of a very difficult to please crowd, at times.
Rick