Not gonna be able to discuss much on this right now since I'm typing this on my phone, but your gonna have to bear with it with either another mod or with me later since I'm currently busy doing backyard work on a sunny Friday afternoon.
Anyway, your missing the point.
The reason why that post was moderated at all in the
first place was because the post had
reasonable doubt associated with it which is why I can see
@Flotilla did what he did. Bringing this up
again here but I guess it still needs to be repeated:
Intention is
irrelevant if it can be reasonably perceived
differently.
Here is a sample scenario: I take a picture of my current unfortunately overly neglected weed infested backyard that has dog shit everywhere. I post this picture [in a relatively large size and not spoiled too] on the PC beta discussion thread with no additional context whatsoever. Chances are I'm gonna be reported for that post along the lines of "shit-posting [no pun intended]", "derailing" etc.
As a response I counter with "B-but you misunderstand my deep cryptic message! The weeds represent X, the the dog shit represents y, and the water hose represents Z so not off topic with this beta discussion!". Yeah that kind of posting habit is a great precedence to encourage.
Your
allowed to be make witty on topic posts with cryptic meanings to show off your knowledge on X subject, but if your post is gonna be cryptic
at the very least get
rid of the reasonable doubt that the post can be perceived as OT shit posting that doesn't exactly benefit the thread.
Since I'm a nice and reasonable guy I'll even offer some acceptable solutions
:
1. Pick a better picture that isn't as vague to eliminate the reasonable doubt , but still delivers the same cryptic message. Just don't post image macros, unacceptable rule breaking images, etc.
2. Keep the same picture, but actually have a brief written message associated with the picture to get rid of reasonable doubt like "Guess the VN reference?" Or "First person who guesses the VN reference right gets a like" etc.
3. Even better: combination above the above two points.
See when I first saw this message the thought that crossed my mind was "This is either a vague cryptic VN refererence [which is what it ended up being after Isa finally decided to offer some relevant context], this is just common OT shit-posting that the forum is greatly familiar with, or even this was a legitimate mistake because the post could have been in the wrong thread".
While I understood the possibility that Isa had no bad
intentions in the post, but the fact of the matter was the post invited
reasonable doubt and the thread happened to have a staff present who acted accordingly.
Also the 'threads should be treated differently based on thread post count' logic is asinine. It invites a whole host of new problems. What arbitrary thread post count should be acceptable threshold for mod enforcement? Does this mean new threads early posts can be anything? What rules are allowed to be enforced sometimes? etc.
Anyway I'm done with this discussion for the time being as explained above. If you properly revise the deleted post then it should be fine if you still care about this issue. I imagine you would care though since you saw the need to publicly announce this 'injustice' here in the first place.
If there is still some further issue that you need to discuss publicly or privately with me I won't be able to respond for a few hours give/take, but I'll be happy to respond to any questions, concerns, criticism, praise, whatever. Have a good day.
