Reviving some important old threads

[WrathofAsyouwereKIop]

MNHQ
Can we be assured that older threads that are revived for informative purposes for newbies, won't get retrospective deletions, just because a new person happens to take offence and report?

I had a post deleted 6months after I posted and that counted as a strike. I did not receive an email from MNHQ about that deletion . I found out about it after I was given a second strike.
My second strike was for a phrase that I'd used countless times, it had never been reported before.
I don't bother to post in FWR anymore. It's now become an echo chamber for all the anti women activists.
I read it every day but I really cant be arsed tying myself up in linguistic knots just to keep AWAs happy.

Absolutepowercorrupts

Thats just so unfair

I think MNHQ are doing their best but these are changing times. It is apparent that there are some people who are determined to undermine the rules for the sole purpose of disrupting reasonable discussions.

I agree
An old thread that is used as a reference point should be locked with a banner heading.

Sorted.

rufus, I thought it was too.

I could live with certain terms (tf cs tm and whatever), being redacted if it was clearly stated in the banner that these terms had been redacted and on which date this had occurred.

Oh, I don’t mean is expect the banner to include the full, now banned, terms! That wasn’t clear. More along the lines of “certain terms that were permitted at the time of posted but are no longer considered acceptable (as per guidelines of whatever date) have been retrospectively redacted. Date of redaction xx-xx-xx”

As I said earlier all that would need is for me to AS a now banned term, report, and for retrospective posts a user is potentially banned.

For someone to do this, I'd doubt their reasons would be altruistic.

It would make sense to censor the now offensive content, but not delete the post or have that censorship count towards a ban.

That sounds about right MmeBufo.
It will help to counter the effect of those trying to 'play the system' .

I think so Wrath.

Also maybe referring reports on threads older than, say, 30 days after the post in question to a ‘spirit of mn’ review or upwards in the chain of command for review or some such. Deletions can be temporary, can’t they? Technically speaking?

It would be massively unfair for anyone to get a strike for something written before the new regs. Fair enough for MN to delete it, if they feel the need but they must not allow themselves to be bullied into banning people for past sines.

In fact they need to stand up for their members a lot more than they do and not cave in to the trolls out to cause trouble.

ItsLateHumpty
Yes, removing the offending content (not necessarily the whole post) would help to retain the basic integrity of the thread.
And, no bans for the reported posters just because we, as a community have moved on. This sounds alot fairer.

WeHaveSnowdrops
Since we have disruptors targeting posters, it is clearly working, for the trolls.
Acknowledging the rule changes, deletion of content would help to give control back in the hands of MNHQ not the disruptors.
Because, at times it feels like the trolls do have the upper hand.

It does, @Wrath.

Very unfair on those of is who have been around for years.