Why cant we delete blogs?

[Snow 5,305]

I am already aware that it is not possible to completely delete a blog but I was wondering what the reason for this being the case was?

[ImDaMisterL 532]

Huh, you can't delete them? Can you at least hide them? 

[Fhaolan 4,468]

This rule predates me as staff, so this explanation is basically what *I* was told and what I've pieced together from seeing the way the permission settings are exposed by the IP.B software we use.

Long time ago there was a rash of people who created rule-breaking stuff, and then immediately deleted it with 'you didn't see that' snickering. The idea supposedly was that if there was no evidence, they couldn't be punished. It was far more immature and annoying than the staff at that time were willing to deal with, so they turned off people's abilities to delete content as globally as they could, and forced people to go to staff to get things removed: posts, blogs, etc. Basically people being assholes ruined it for other people; a pretty common side-effect of being an asshole.

And even as staff we don't delete stuff as much as possible. The rule is 'hide, don't delete', if that ability is possible, so that everything is retained. It's just not necessarily visible. so if someone says "But I didn't post porn all over the site! The mod is lying." we can say "Yes you did. We still have it, complete with your user ID attached." I haven't fully gone over all the changes the recent upgrade did to permission setting, because I haven't had time for it, but it wasn't possible to give people 'hide' permissions to their own posts. The hide function was only available as a moderation function, which meant if we gave people 'hide' they could do it to other people's posts as well which was not the best idea...

Which brings us to blogs specifically... Blogs didn't have a hide function at all. It was set back to draft for individual entries or completely delete the entire thing and that's it. The same was true for status updates and database entries (the two Character databases we have). I know characters can now be hidden with the upgrade, so it's possible blogs can be as well, it honestly didn't occur to me to check until now.... (checking... nope. Individual entries can be hidden now, which is new, but entire blogs can only be deleted.)

If the new version of the software allows it, I would advocate giving people the ability to hide their own posts/blog entries/etc. But that's going to require a bit more research to see if it's even possible.

[ImDaMisterL 532]

4 minutes ago, Fhaolan said:

If the new version of the software allows it, I would advocate giving people the ability to hide their own posts/blog entries/etc. But that's going to require a bit more research to see if it's even possible.

The forum I go to is also run with IP.B and users there have the ability to hide their own Posts/topics and only theirs (not sure about blog entries though, as that feature is turned off there). Not sure how they do it, but I think I could ask the admins for you, if you want.

[Fhaolan 4,468]

3 minutes ago, ImDaMisterL said:

The forum I go to is also run with IP.B and users there have the ability to hide their own Posts/topics and only theirs (not sure about blog entries though, as that feature is turned off there). Not sure how they do it, but I think I could ask the admins for you, if you want.

Sure! It's probably easy enough, but even with the upgrade the permission settings on this thing is a bit of a mess back there making it tricky to find individual settings. That 'allow people to hide their own content' function might be an add-on as well, so it might not be native to IP.B requiring us to get that add-on (which might have a one-time cost, or even a subscription fee to be able to install. It varies.)

[ImDaMisterL 532]

4 minutes ago, Fhaolan said:

Sure! It's probably easy enough, but even with the upgrade the permission settings on this thing is a bit of a mess back there making it tricky to find individual settings. That 'allow people to hide their own content' function might be an add-on as well, so it might not be native to IP.B requiring us to get that add-on (which might have a one-time cost, or even a subscription fee to be able to install. It varies.)

Hmm, true that... let's hope that's not the case though, the less money we have to spend to raise the quality of our internet lives, the better. Now if you excuse me, I gotta poke the big moustache admin man.

[Jeric 46,834]

One huge issue with self hiding has always been how to address the first post. Considering the prevalence of people that like to sanitize their profiles when they become disgruntled, I suspect some may actually try to remove popular threads that they created. There is actually a plug-in that can switch the 'owner' of a topic which can mitigate that issue (which actually may have a legit use for swapping out former staff). 

As far as the old blogs, it was a weird hybrid permissions system that actually treated bloggers almost like moderators and admins. I think in the attempt to save time building the feature they found themselves coded into a corner. It was always amusing to see bloggers show up on audit reports that Admins and Team Leaders used for oversight reasons.

[BloodDrops 762]

1 hour ago, Fhaolan said:

This rule predates me as staff, so this explanation is basically what *I* was told and what I've pieced together from seeing the way the permission settings are exposed by the IP.B software we use.

Long time ago there was a rash of people who created rule-breaking stuff, and then immediately deleted it with 'you didn't see that' snickering. The idea supposedly was that if there was no evidence, they couldn't be punished. It was far more immature and annoying than the staff at that time were willing to deal with, so they turned off people's abilities to delete content as globally as they could, and forced people to go to staff to get things removed: posts, blogs, etc. Basically people being assholes ruined it for other people; a pretty common side-effect of being an asshole.

And even as staff we don't delete stuff as much as possible. The rule is 'hide, don't delete', if that ability is possible, so that everything is retained. It's just not necessarily visible. so if someone says "But I didn't post porn all over the site! The mod is lying." we can say "Yes you did. We still have it, complete with your user ID attached." I haven't fully gone over all the changes the recent upgrade did to permission setting, because I haven't had time for it, but it wasn't possible to give people 'hide' permissions to their own posts. The hide function was only available as a moderation function, which meant if we gave people 'hide' they could do it to other people's posts as well which was not the best idea...

Which brings us to blogs specifically... Blogs didn't have a hide function at all. It was set back to draft for individual entries or completely delete the entire thing and that's it. The same was true for status updates and database entries (the two Character databases we have). I know characters can now be hidden with the upgrade, so it's possible blogs can be as well, it honestly didn't occur to me to check until now.... (checking... nope. Individual entries can be hidden now, which is new, but entire blogs can only be deleted.)

If the new version of the software allows it, I would advocate giving people the ability to hide their own posts/blog entries/etc. But that's going to require a bit more research to see if it's even possible.

Can't you just put any rule breakers in a room with me for a hour?

I can straighten them out, or just eat them. There probably some rule saying, mods can't eat there users. 

 

can we be allowed the hide function? 

sounds useful

[BloodDrops 762]

1 hour ago, Fhaolan said:

But I didn't post porn all over the site

The amount of explicit rp's I've seen on this forum, is just too damn high.

Had to interrupt one before it got to the explicit stage

^^

But still, you might consider making a locked part of forums for ponies with that sort of friskiness, so they can get it out of there system where it just doesn't come out. 

[ImDaMisterL 532]

On 2017-6-7 at 4:30 PM, BloodDrops said:

There probably some rule saying, mods can't eat there users. 

There isn't, probably because it was never needed.

It might be now, though, since you're giving them ideas! 

[BloodDrops 762]

16 hours ago, ImDaMisterL said:

There isn't, probably because it was never needed.

It might be now, though, since you're giving them ideas! 

I need to become a mod

then i can snack freely