So I've recently been informed that the reason users are no longer notified as to who or why their posts were deleted is because APPARENTLY the mods don't like being called out (or something to that effect). And I must say, I disagree strongly with this decision. And not just because it's a slippery slope to "mods are [National Socialists] but because it's harmful to community health. And I wouldn't be surprised if this post ALSO gets deleted (because [National Socialists]).

I don't know about you, but I feel like mods delete posts as a way of pruning the forums of unnecessary information and in doing so kind of suck the words of a user right out of the air. But without notifying the original poster and not being required to state why (or if they're required to do so for other mods, not being required to tell the poster why) or even being inconsistent in their methods (some posts get locked, others get deleted), we run into several issues which are foundations for a strong rule enforcement in society.

1. Inconsistent Enforcement
Why are some posts locked instead of just flat out deleted? Is there a discussion length in which it is easier to just lock the thread instead of delete it outright? They also address different issues. A locked thread may be viewed, so the content remains but the users may not respond in that thread any longer. The solution of course is to create a new thread, but who's to say that there were no longer any productive arguments to be made? The mod of course, and if you wanted to continue such a thread but you'd have to make a new thread and reference the previous thread in your first post. On the other hand, deleting a thread outright is a different issue altogether. The content that was generated is just removed. It's a way to silence an entire set of viewpoints. So what would mark the line of deleting a thread vs. locking a thread. I would think that the mods should delete threads that go against the posting guidelines, but that's not the case. Spam is frequently tolerated or interpreted as something else while other things that aren't genuine spam are deleted because... reasons? (I also note that one of my threads has been deleted as I check for examples of inconsistent pruning and while I can understand why it was removed from a mod perspective, I personally wouldn't have removed it if I were a mod viewing someone else's post). A thread should be locked when the key voices are no longer going back-and-forth with the arguments, but I've seen on several occasions that threads are more likely to be locked if they state limitations of BYOND or recommend other platforms while favoritism is played towards BYOND's white knights. It's not an objective issue, it's a subjective issue.

2. Not notifying the user
As I stated before, BYOND no longer notifies user about their posts being deleted or gives a reason as to why. This is a problem on two fronts. The first problem is that the user doesn't know why their content was deleted. If the whole goal of deleting posts is to keep negative light from being shed on BYOND from a guest perspective, then why would you not let the user know why their post was deleted, which may prevent them from posting similar content in the future? It makes no sense.

3. Fear of Recognition
This is one I find extremely odd, that is, mods not wanting to be recognized for their actions. It strikes me as odd because it's an issue of accountability. Being able to view the votes in congress is common sense. It's so we can hold congressmen accountable for their actions. Police officers have badge numbers, every where you go there is some way of linking actions to their perpetrators. But BYOND seems to have taken an odd stance that they don't want mods to be linked to their actions. I'm guessing the issue arose because people were calling out specific moderators for deleting their posts, but was that so bad? Every general election there are a number of commercials that go out and point out recent actions of politicians and discuss whether or not this is a person you want in power. And I recognize that it's a pretty hefty leap from BYOND mod to congressman, but the idea is the same. And the way the community is treated is how the community grows to be what it is. And we all like to blame anime and fangames for BYOND's community reputation, but it runs deeper than that.

It's not uncommon for people to complain that the mods on these fangames are rude, oppressive, and outright unbearable. They often complain that they were booted for no reason, abuse of power in the way of mutes, and being a "staff" member giving you unfair advantages. But is this so different from BYOND's recent approach to modding? Deleting your thread without so much as a howsy do sounds like a mute for no reason to me. Even if there was a good reason, and if both parties know the reason, that's no excuse for the mod to not state the reason. Because otherwise, you can quickly run into the issue of trying to retroactively "fit the rules to the crime" instead of the crime being against the rules in the first place.

My suggestion, if you don't want the mods to be held accountable, you could assign them numbers that would show up when deleting or locking posts. Or you could at least notify the user of the reason their posts were modded. At least by giving a reason, you let the user know which behaviors were not acceptable (even if you're going to be inconsistent about which behaviors are acceptable and which aren't).

EDIT: Post created at 4:20 on 4/20 B)