Banning questions

[Tups]

I'm not sure why my whole question about Baby P was banned. My question wasn't illegal; I genuinely didn't know that anyone would know the names of the adults involved. I apologise if I sparked off illegalities - which I evidently did. I can still see all the remarks made. Presumably I'm the only one who can?? Is it not possible simply to remove offending answers, if not in this thread, then in others? Does the banning of the question leave me with a black mark?

[Schutzengel]

Tups,
It does seem a shame that what starts out as an innocent question, sometimes gets banned, not the original posters fault, but because of answers on the thread that are out of order according to Answerbank rules. Perhaps sometime in the future a way will be found to enable the reporting of offending answers (according to the rules), and leaving the original non-offending thread intact.

[LoftyLottie]

Which is exactly how it used to be Schutzengel until not so long ago. But we have been told by the Editor we won't get this function back (but can't understand why!)

[Gromit]

They've got some Chilian students writing code in Santiago, but the Ed doesn't speak Spanish.
Doesn't bode well for a speedy resolution to this website's technical problems.

[nogginthenog]

Lofty i thought it was scrapped to stop people blocking other members replies

[LoftyLottie]

Well I thought the excuse was that it was stopped to prevent multiple name users banning people - but if that's the case then surely they should also stop the facility to report questions.

[Schutzengel]

Oh Dear,
So that means that persons posting a perfectly sensible question, which gets a really good thread going, often which gives good advice, or information, can be banned, just because possibly one person chooses to include an answer which is against the Answerbank rules. Which then leaves the originator of the question, unaware of why they have been banned, and thinking that there was something wrong with their question, when there wasn't, and it was one or more of the answers which caused the problem. Perhaps the Editor may change his mind.








Perhaps the editor will change his mind.

[LoftyLottie]

He has made it very clear that he is not prepared to discuss it any more. He didn't mince his words.

[Gromit]

No, He minced TheCorbyLoon

[LoftyLottie]

LOL Gromit

[kempie]

Gromit - is it a requirement of Chilean coding for students to be taught the inclusion of irony, or is it the result of mistranslation?

[LoftyLottie]

Oh dear!! Nice knowing you.

[Gromit]

I meant minced as in "to cut or chop into very small pieces." No sexual slur intended.

[jno]

just so, Tups - once, objectionable posts on a thread would be removed; now, the whole thread goes. Baby, bathwater and all. Your original question looked fine to me. (Yes, you're now the only person who can see it; as to whether black marks are being handed out, who can say any more?)

[nogginthenog]

lofty what you said is actually what i meant

[moonshadow]

I e-mailed the Ed last Thursday and asked if he would remove a certain persons abusive remarks. He very kindly zapped them and the rest of the thread is still there.

[LoftyLottie]

Oh, yes I can see that now ;o)

[LoftyLottie]

That answer was to nogginthenog.

[Gromit]

Zapping is done at the Editor's discretion and after he himself has evaluated whether it goes against Site Rules. It would seem that all automated processes for getting answers banned have now been disabled.

Tups,
I am only guessing, but if people named names on your thread, then that would not only break Site Rules, but would be against the law and make the owners liable for prosecution. In that case, the Ed probably wanted to iradicate all traces of the thread (and any chance of people repeating the offending names) for good.