I haven't been active much lately so I'm just now discovering the blowup that resulted in Adatesman "leaving" the site and the bullshit that has followed with him deleting large amount of content from the lab and possibly other forums. THAT SHOULD NEVER BE PERMITTED TO HAPPEN. Especially since he announced his intentions in advance.

Thread continuity is key to any value this site may have and is, at the very least, a simple courtesy owed to the other contributors. Everyone who posts to this site knows they are contributing to an archived dialogue. They also have every reason to expect that the site owners/managers will maintain thread and archive integrity.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. When a person decides to post to this site, they are making a contribution to the archive of collective discourse. Simple as that. To withdraw ones contributions is to mar the contributions of the others here.

To do so is childish and disrespectful, to allow it to happen on your site is the epitome of unprofessionalism.

Disagree. posts have always been the "property" of the person who posts it. You can add and remove anything you want whenever you want. RC.com owns the site, not the content. It is in their best interests to run their site in such a way that valuable contributors do not leave and take their information with them...

you give permission that such content may be used at the sole discretion of Rockclimbing.com anywhere else on the site

User Requested Post Removal Policy
As an open public forum user, you are responsible for your own communications and are responsible for the consequences of posting those communications. We will usually not honor requests for post removals or editing. You are welcome to edit or remove your own posts.

Disagree. posts have always been the "property" of the person who posts it. You can add and remove anything you want whenever you want. RC.com owns the site, not the content. It is in their best interests to run their site in such a way that valuable contributors do not leave and take their information with them.

we've already seen folks like John Gill, John Long, Ammon, ClimbNow1( dunno his real name but damn good photos) leave. I have to believe some of the reasoning behind it is the major signal to noise discrepancy. and now harassment without admin. defense.

the unprofessional move was Daniel allowing JT and Curt to continue to poke, jab and push Aric out of here.

It reads to me that they can put it up on the front page or whatever. And they can delete it as they see fit.. not that you can't change it.

Maybe you were still a mod then but isn't the only reason PTPP's stuff is still intact is that he was banned before he could edit it

If a persons posts are their "property", then you would be able to delete your content from within the body of my post, but you cannot. Allowing the archive to be bastardized by arbitrarily allowing people to delete unquoted content is bullshit and a flaw in the system.

This model was chosen for the site, so I expect the owners/operators to stand behind it.

My point was primarily related to the part I bolded. That part seems to say that once you post something here, RC.com has a future right to use it any way they like--except for commercial gain, which is specifically not allowed without the user's permission.

As far as PTPP goes, I have no idea if he had any desire to delete any of his content when he left.

Curt

shrug.. not going to get any sympathy from me. If you think it is valuable then you best quote it or else it could be gone at any time.

Making posts permanent would seem to be very difficult to control since it wouldn't allow any editing (if delete isnt an option then editing to ____ still would be). I would also expect the amount of quality posts to plummet even further than the already dismal level. People aren't being paid to contribute to this site hence their material is not owned by the site.

See the next part that i posted.. another section allows you to delete as much as you want. they just won't do it for you.. much to Dingus's dismay

I never said they won't allow you to delete your posts. My point is that the content on servers is archived all the time and even after you delete a post, there is a reasonably good chance they still have it somewhere--particularly if the post existed for a while. And, they reserve the right to use anything you have previously posted in the future. I have never seen them do this, only that the T.O.S. apparently allows for it.

Curt

Getting rid of the option to delete would at least be a good start.

Banning those who actually follow through on their threats to edit all of their posts in to oblivion would be then next step.

How about instead having management improve conditions so that users who have contributed a lot do not want to leave in such a way. Oh wait.. that required work and effort. Things this staff has avoided despite the urging for many years ie route database, photos, and a killfile feature

nah.. take the lazy way out like the rest of the country.. take a pill to solve the symptom not the disease.

While I agree with you on that, it is somewhat of a separate issue and does nothing to address the times when a person does not do the ethical thing and honor their implicit agreement. The agreement that their posts are to be part of a dialogue and that other posters not only can, but necessarily do rely on their content to give context and meaning to their own.

why should someone who was treated the way Aric was owe this site or any of the users on it anything?

again.. if you don't treat people like crap then they won't have any reason to delete their content.

Jake,

I have seen a few comments similar to yours. Although not exactly on point to the main topic here, I feel the need to jump in and comment.

IMHO, Aric is not a victim. During his drawn out departure from this site he made a number of post trying to portray himself as such, but I feel that reality is somewhat different. I saw him dish out just as much "abuse" as he got. He seemed to enjoy it when it was going his way. Toward the end of his association with this site he seemed more than willing to get personal and incredibly insulting to users while in his role as a moderator.

Although I agree that he owes the site and its users nothing, his scorched earth departure exhibits a huge lack of class and maturity. However, i am not sure what the site management could do to stop it short of removing the delete and edit functions, which would do little to help the overall content of this site.

either way.. the info is gone and in the context of this thread that is what matters and is the way that it should be.

Again, the "info" is probably not permanently gone, it simply can't be viewed by users at the present time. Whether that is right or wrong is more the current issue.

Curt

Pretty sure you are wrong. A mod would have to confirm it though.

I'm not so sure about that. Have you read the Terms of Service here? Here is the final Term:


The bolding is mine. I hadn't actually given it much thought, previously--but it does appear to me (from this) that the site claims a future right to a user's posts. In practice, I think users have had a right to control their content, but this current practice seems to conflict with the T.O.S., unless of course I'm reading it wrong.

Curt

Oh, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the content of the servers here is backed up (saved) periodically. Any site pretty much has to do that in case their server really crashes hard--and they need to do a restore from one of the recent back ups.

Curt

DDT and Mods-

It would seem that a user has taken it upon themselves to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS to remove my content from this site. It is my content to remove and regardless of other users' sense of ownership of it it is my right to remove it. Bulk quoting of it in an attempt to prevent me from exercising this right is wholly inappropriate and I request that posts quoting my material from the point where it was made known I would be removing it (post dated Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM) onwards be removed and it be made clear that such behavior will not be tolerated.

Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated.

-aric.

Quoted

So, those of you who think posters should be able to delete anything they want. Aric is currently deleting his, largely unquoted, posts from the "Alien Failures" thread.

Not only are there possible safety implications but you may also recall that many of us put up our own cash to purchase the second round of pull tested aliens. Those results are now gone. Do you stand in defense of that? No collective discourse, eh?

Edit: My mistake. I forgot that the second round of testing had it's own thread so those posts have been quoted for preservation, along with the first several pages from the alien failures thread.

DDT and Mods-

It would seem that a user has taken it upon themselves to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS to remove my content from this site. It is my content to remove and regardless of other users' sense of ownership of it it is my right to remove it. Bulk quoting of it in an attempt to prevent me from exercising this right is wholly inappropriate and I request that posts quoting my material from the point where it was made known I would be removing it (post dated Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM) onwards be removed and it be made clear that such behavior will not be tolerated.

Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated.

-aric.

You're misinterpreting it. That clause in the TOS is to protect the site's ability to provide a quote function, move threads and display content in areas of the site the poster may not have originally intended, for example photos on the front page.

DDT and Mods-

It would seem that a user has taken it upon themselves to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS to remove my content from this site. It is my content to remove and regardless of other users' sense of ownership of it it is my right to remove it. Bulk quoting of it in an attempt to prevent me from exercising this right is wholly inappropriate and I request that posts quoting my material from the point where it was made known I would be removing it (post dated Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM) onwards be removed and it be made clear that such behavior will not be tolerated.

Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated.

-aric.

So, you not only want the right to delete your own content, but to have content removed from other user's posts? That's quite amazing.

Curt

When said posts are being done explicitly to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS, yes. The posts in question are not part of the original discussions and contain no new content, so therefore are being done specifically to deny me my rights under the TOS and should be removed.

...Not only are there possible safety implications but you may also recall that many of us put up our own cash to purchase the second round of pull tested aliens. Those results are now gone. Do you stand in defense of that? No collective discourse, eh?

As far as I can tell, you have the right to delete and edit your own posts and your rights end precisely there. I will however add the disclaimer that I'm not an attorney or an expert in copyright issues.

Curt

1) The fact that you were acting not just as an individual but in the capacity of the Lab Forum editor for RC.com brings into question whether the content you posted there is truly yours alone.

2) If money was solicited to enable any of the work you did, this further reinforces the position that the work product was not solely owned by you.

Curt

Incorrect. That work was done by me solely for the greater good of the climbing community. RC had nothing to do with it, and if you care to recall the same results and information (as well as the solicitation for funds for further testing) was made available in ST, MP, SP, Gunks, CC, etc. RC has no more a claim on it than any of the other sites, which in total amounts to zero. Work done by me, with funds solicited by me on multiple venues and with no official backing from anyone is pretty much the definition of work product that I can claim ownership of.

When said posts are being done explicitly to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS, yes. The posts in question are not part of the original discussions and contain no new content, so therefore are being done specifically to deny me my rights under the TOS and should be removed.

I would also point out that posts I had removed yesterday are now popping back up, which means that another user is pulling copies of my posts from their browser cache to quote them back into the threads. Another user presuming to have a greater right to the usage of my content than I do is in violation of both the letter and spirit of the TOS.


EDIT- I was incorrect that the user was pulling them from his browser cache. Apparently he's getting them from Google Cache instead (according to a PM from the user in question), which in my mind blows a hole in any argument based upon loss of value to the community, as it is clearly still available elsewhere.

This is the impression I have, too, that the content is still there even though Aric "deleted" it.

Are you saying that (2) above is false? This was a claim made by notapplicable--that money was contributed to purchase Aliens for at least some of your tests.

Curt

There is a difference between deleting a post, and deleting just the content of the post. If (a mod, at least) deletes a user's post, the post remains in the database; it just isn't displayed. However, if a user deletes the content of his post, he is just doing an edit, and it may well be that when he submits the edited post, it overwrites the original content in the database. In that case, the original content would be gone, unless it had been saved during a database backup, and not overwritten by a subsequent backup. Of course it could be the case that the DB actually saves each version of an edited post separately, so that older versions could be restored by the DB administrator. I don't know, but I don't think it's safe to assume that the original version exists.

Jay

When said posts are being done explicitly to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS, yes. The posts in question are not part of the original discussions and contain no new content, so therefore are being done specifically to deny me my rights under the TOS and should be removed.

I would also point out that posts I had removed yesterday are now popping back up, which means that another user is pulling copies of my posts from their browser cache to quote them back into the threads. Another user presuming to have a greater right to the usage of my content than I do is in violation of both the letter and spirit of the TOS.


EDIT- I was incorrect that the user was pulling them from his browser cache. Apparently he's getting them from Google Cache instead (according to a PM from the user in question), which in my mind blows a hole in any argument based upon loss of value to the community, as it is clearly still available elsewhere.

As far as I can tell, you have the right to delete and edit your own posts and your rights end precisely there. I will however add the disclaimer that I'm not an attorney or an expert in copyright issues.



Edited to add:

If this (below) is true, it certainly changes things, in my opinion:


1) The fact that you were acting not just as an individual but in the capacity of the Lab Forum editor for RC.com brings into question whether the content you posted there is truly yours alone.

2) If money was solicited to enable any of the work you did, this further reinforces the position that the work product was not solely owned by you.

Curt

I am saying that funds were solicited by me on RC, Gunks, ST, MP, SP, CC and possibly several other sites.

It's only available in google cache for a matter of hours to days, which is a fatal blow to your own argument, since the only way to keep that material available to the community is to promptly retrieve and repost it somewhere.

Jay

And those people were not paying you consulting fees to perform proprietary tests for them. They were contributing to a program of testing and public disclosure of the test results. They had every reason to expect that the information would be published, as you promised, and where you published, and not be capriciously withdrawn at some later date.

Jay

Which brings us full circle: Who owns control of content I create? The TOS says I do, and another user quoting the content back in well after my removing it violates that right granted me by the TOS. As such these posts are inappropriate and should be removed.

The only thing that's going in circles are your own arguments. You're simultaneously that (1) since your posts can be retrieved from google cache and reposted, you should be able to delete your posts; and (2) no one should be allowed to repost your posts.

Jay

JT, I have no interest in discussing this (let alone anything) with you, so kindly drop it and go find something else to do.

Aric: I'm sure you can see what you're really asking for is that Jay and Curt are punished by proxy. Since their behaviour falls within the terms of the site, you're removing all of your content in an effort to get other users pissed off at their behaviour.

Frankly, some of us were pissed off at their behaviour to start with, and you're not advancing your own flag by requesting this. You're putting the mods in a no-win position (they either abuse your "rights" or remove a lot of information other users may find useful).

JT, I have no interest in discussing this (let alone anything) with you, so kindly drop it and go find something else to do.

Which brings us full circle: Who owns control of content I create? The TOS says I do...

...and another user quoting the content back in well after my removing it violates that right granted me by the TOS...

At no point has that information not been publicly available. As I mentioned earlier, it was cross posted on all of the major climbing sites. In fact, I reposted the final product of it (the report sent to the UIAA and CSPC) yet again on ST just a few weeks ago. Link

No kindly leave me alone JT, as I have no wish to get into yet another argument with you.

I would ask you look at the bigger picture: RC is a for-profit entity based upon ad-generated revenue. I believe my content to be a major draw for the site and as I do not appreciate how this was handled by management I have decided to remove my posts and thereby deny the for-profit entity the ability to continue making money off of my work. Yes, this puts the mods in a no-win position but frankly I can't honestly say its one I created. No need to rehash the reasons for this, so moving on....

Seeing as I intend to make the bulk of that information available elsewhere (some of which already is), the community as a whole is merely inconvenienced in the short term for something that will ultimately be of greater value. And on a side note, I find this whole issue regarding ownership of content and fair use rather interesting. Its far from being a black and white issue in general, but in this case it is clear that my rights per the TOS for the site are being inappropriately and willfully violated by another user.

I would ask you look at the bigger picture: RC is a for-profit entity based upon ad-generated revenue. I believe my content to be a major draw for the site and as I do not appreciate how this was handled by management I have decided to remove my posts and thereby deny the for-profit entity the ability to continue making money off of my work. Yes, this puts the mods in a no-win position but frankly I can't honestly say its one I created. No need to rehash the reasons for this, so moving on...

Seeing as I intend to make the bulk of that information available elsewhere (some of which already is), the community as a whole is merely inconvenienced in the short term for something that will ultimately be of greater value. And on a side note, I find this whole issue regarding ownership of content and fair use rather interesting. Its far from being a black and white issue in general...

When you put it that way it's pretty clear that you should delete and move on. If you feel wronged by RC.com management then all the other arguments are not really important.

Google cached pages 1, 2, 4 & 5 containing posts deleted by Aric. It looks like page 3 is lost for good.

http://www.keepandshare.com/...6-13-pm-3-7-meg?da=y

http://www.keepandshare.com/...6-17-pm-3-6-meg?da=y

http://www.keepandshare.com/...10-6-19-pm-510k?da=y

http://www.keepandshare.com/...10-6-19-pm-386k?da=y

Aric, we all know that isn't going to happen. The more you respond to him, the more he will continue to respond in turn. I say this not as a mod, but as a bystander. The ball in your court as to whether it gets dropped by JT or not. (mod hat back on) Your request has been noted and is being discussed. I suspect that you will have an answer by tomorrow therefore negating the further need for you to defend your argument here.

Sorry to go back on my word on not posting more, C4F, but I don't know that you guys would notice that the user in question has now moved on to saving copies of my posts elsewhere and providing links to the original material. As this is merely a continuation of the earlier conduct in a different form I find it objectionable as well.

I would ask you look at the bigger picture: RC is a for-profit entity based upon ad-generated revenue. I believe my content to be a major draw for the site...

Not that I actually have a vote, but after living through this debacle, I think I've changed my mind about deletability of posts. I'm beginning to believe that it would be preferable, that after a certain period of time, for posts to become uneditable and undeletable. Prospective forum members should give due consideration to the consequences of contributing to the forums in advance. And should they decide to contribute, they should be aware that their contributions will become part of a permanent record, after a reasonable period of time (perhaps a few days) allowed for correction of typos, etc. The integrity of the forums should trump a user's ability to corrupt threads by editing or deleting their posts, for whatever reason, later.

Jay

Copy PMed to DDT.

Not that I actually have a vote, but after living through this debacle, I think I've changed my mind about deletability of posts. I'm beginning to believe that it would be preferable, that after a certain period of time, for posts to become uneditable and undeletable. Prospective forum members should give due consideration to the consequences of contributing to the forums in advance. And should they decide to contribute, they should be aware that their contributions will become a permanent part of the database, after a reasonable period of time (perhaps a few days) allowed for correction of typos, etc. The integrity of the forums should trump a user's ability to corrupt threads by editing or deleting their posts, for whatever reason, later.

Jay

Copy PMed to DDT.

Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship.

It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. The term fair use originated in the United States. A similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright...

I agree with that. In addition, while briefly discussing this with Lisa (who is an attorney and who has done quite a bit of copyright and intellectual property work) she pointed this out:


Pretty clearly, under the Fair Use doctrine, quoting the posts of another individual for purposes of "commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship" is fine--and does not appear to violate any rights of the original copyright holder.

Curt

Not that I actually have a vote, but after living through this debacle, I think I've changed my mind about deletability of posts. I'm beginning to believe that it would be preferable, that after a certain period of time, for posts to become uneditable and undeletable. Prospective forum members should give due consideration to the consequences of contributing to the forums in advance. And should they decide to contribute, they should be aware that their contributions will become part of a permanent record, after a reasonable period of time (perhaps a few days) allowed for correction of typos, etc. The integrity of the forums should trump a user's ability to corrupt threads by editing or deleting their posts, for whatever reason, later.

Jay

Copy PMed to DDT.

Curt, your Wikipedia quote, unless I am mistaken, seems to say that what NA is doing is not covered under fair use.

If I were Aric, I'd be in contact with a lawyer over notapplicables behavior.

Unless you're an expert copyright attorney, I'll go with the legal opinion I have. If you have a legal basis for your position, please advise. Thanks.

Curt

Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship.

The counter-argument is that he should have thought about the risks and rewards of contributing material to a for-profit entity, then accepting a position of authority with that profit-making entity, and then abusing that authority.

Jay

I probably should have phrased that as a question because that is what it really was.


It seems that NA is not ostensibly doing any of those things because he is not attaching any of his own content to the quotes.

He is implicitly doing the last three, but is that enough? I am curious.

However, NA and others have indeed attached past comments to much of the work that Aric is currently deleting. Without preserving Aric's comments, much of those posts become nonsensical and lacking in context. Therefore, quoting it so that prior criticism and commentary maintain their context would seem to be a fair application of the Fair Use doctrine.

Curt

DDT and Mods-

It would seem that a user has taken it upon themselves to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS to remove my content from this site. It is my content to remove and regardless of other users' sense of ownership of it it is my right to remove it. Bulk quoting of it in an attempt to prevent me from exercising this right is wholly inappropriate and I request that posts quoting my material from the point where it was made known I would be removing it (post dated Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM) onwards be removed and it be made clear that such behavior will not be tolerated.

Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated.

-aric.

Which brings us full circle: Who owns control of content I create? The TOS says I do, and another user quoting the content back in well after my removing it violates that right granted me by the TOS.

...I have decided to remove my posts and thereby deny the for-profit entity the ability to continue making money off of my work.

...I find this whole issue regarding ownership of content and fair use rather interesting. Its far from being a black and white issue in general...

...the user in question has now moved on to saving copies of my posts elsewhere and providing links to the original material. As this is merely a continuation of the earlier conduct in a different form I find it objectionable as well.

I haven't been active much lately so I'm just now discovering the blowup that resulted in Adatesman "leaving" the site and the bullshit that has followed with him deleting large amount of content from the lab and possibly other forums. THAT SHOULD NEVER BE PERMITTED TO HAPPEN. Especially since he announced his intentions in advance.

Thread continuity is key to any value this site may have and is, at the very least, a simple courtesy owed to the other contributors. Everyone who posts to this site knows they are contributing to an archived dialogue. They also have every reason to expect that the site owners/managers will maintain thread and archive integrity.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. When a person decides to post to this site, they are making a contribution to the archive of collective discourse. Simple as that. To withdraw ones contributions is to mar the contributions of the others here.

To do so is childish and disrespectful, to allow it to happen on your site is the epitome of unprofessionalism.

So, you not only want the right to delete your own content, but to have content removed from other user's posts? That's quite amazing.

Curt

Aric,

Our Terms of Service (TOS) do not grant you any "right" to remove "your content". Nor do we make any claims, grant any rights, or endeavor to enforce a third party's rights regarding ownership and copyright of content being submitted to our the site. We provide the platform, and we enforce rules to ensure orderly communication, but you are responsible for your communications and the consequences thereof.

While we do provide functionality to edit or delete submissions made from your account, we do not guarantee that you will be able to remove all traces of those submissions in future. There are just too many ways in which posted content can survive and propagate on the internet, as has been pointed out by other users in this thread - from being quoted in other users' posts to being retrieved from Google or someone's local browser cache. That's the nature of the internet. If you put something out there it's bound to live on in one way or another. Just as a letter published in your local newspaper cannot be un-published.

So if you want no traces of your submissions, you should never have posted it in the first place. Even our Forum Rules remind you that "you are responsible for your own communications and are responsible for the consequences of posting those communications". There is no way we will endeavor to regulate or police that.

This is a matter to be resolved between you and the other user.

Daniel

This guy is a complete dickhead for doing what he'd done. This is not his content. Please delete his posts and sanction his ass.

DMT

Notapplicable's quote are malicious in intent...

...the purpose is to take that which is not his.

I've been up all night with bronchitis and back pain, so I'm going to address this only briefly, for now. I believe that there are some rather deep questions here, which I'll respond to more fully when I'm better rested and less medicated. But, I believe a brief reply now is called for in order to balance Dingus's and Angry's posts.


No, they are not. I see no evidence of a history of animosity between Aric and Notapplicable that would lead to such a conclusion.


No. As far as I can tell—and I've discussed it with him—Notapplicable's purpose is to preserve important information for the benefit of the climbing community. I, too, have preserved some of Aric's most valuable material, by downloading it to my computer. I'm still thinking about what, if anything, to do with it, with one possibility being to re-publish it on the web, possibly on this website.

The issues are subtler and deeper than this, but for the time being, let me ask you this: Who owns information, once it is published on the Internet, the poster or the world?

Jay

but for the time being, let me ask you this: Who owns information, once it is published on the Internet, the poster or the world?

Jay

If he takes Adatesman's material against Adatesman's express and stated wishes HE IS A THIEF.

I don't believe his altruistic motives. Flat out do not believe him. Its just plain ole theft.

DMT

Thieves generally are generally motivated by personal gain.

Jay

User Requested Post Removal Policy
As an open public forum user, you are responsible for your own communications and are responsible for the consequences of posting those communications. We will usually not honor requests for post removals or editing. You are welcome to edit or remove your own posts.

Aric, I understand that you're tired of this, but frankly, you should just ignore it. I cannot and I will not stop users from posting within the forum rules and terms of service, just because you don't like it.

The post you quoted above did not break any rule. It's not rude, it does not attack you, it's not verbally abusive. At best it's sarcastic. Perhaps our definitions of what a "personal attack" is differ. To be clear, here is what I see as "personal attack":

* F... you, you<expletive>
* You are dumb/stupid/short/fat/etc.

DDT

Moderators will endeavor to provide fair warning regarding behavior that might warrant their intervention. Failure to heed warnings from the moderators is grounds for suspension of posting privileges. We do however reserve the right to remove any post when these rules are abused or policies violated without prior notice or explanation. If you repeatedly violate any of these rules or otherwise seek to disrupt the board then the administrators can suspend your posting privileges or disable your account at their discretion.

Any abuse directed at our volunteer moderation team in the forums or via private message, including defying the moderators to suspend or ban a member, may result in an immediate suspension or ban. "Gripe" threads about any action from a moderator including "Where did my post go?" posts will be removed. If you have questions about a moderator's action and they did not provide a reason for the intervention, please contact them via private message.