TheXnator wrote:
I appreciate you took the time to write a reply, and to your statement: To say that that thought had not yet crossed my mind would be a lie, however, the way it is written it would imply that it is there for both the other staff AND the users. I also bolded the following part of the policy to hopefully avoid that argument, yet, I had expected it happening anyway. Either way. I quote:


This sentence would imply that this policy is supposed to be enacted the way I stated above, not the way one might think. it is part of the reason why I suggested the staff member get a talking to, not a full blown warning or demotion as it is a messy policy that really should be rewritten. if its intention was not to help the user.

And as I had stated above, yes I know they did not make any attempt to contact a staff member but they really should not have to provided the above policy is correct. As a reason should've been provided. The user stated they had reposted it as they were unsure as to why it was deleted. Something which, could've easily been avoided.

In addition, even if the policy was not meant to also support the user, then the Community Team should make haste to rewrite it. We can only go off of things "as written" not "as intended". These aren't just some easily loophole able server rules, these should be proper policies acting as the foundation on which Zarp is built, there is no room for shakiness here.

I'd imagine that the original writer, I assume ChuteUK of them had put the thought into it, and included the sentence on purpose. Most policies are neat and well designed, I don't think this was a slip through the cracks, rather a purposeful addition to help the users in understanding what they did wrong. As the original author he is free to correct me if I am wrong.

[quote="TheXnator" post=1271830][center][quote][b]...[/b][/center] I just want to point something out here, because I think you've slightly misunderstood the policy - it's more intended for communication between forum staff members, since users can't view their own deleted posts, so in this case whether the post had been edited or not wouldn't make a difference to the user, since they made no attempts to contact forum staff.[/quote] I appreciate you took the time to write a reply, and to your statement: To say that that thought had not yet crossed my mind would be a lie, however, the way it is written it would imply that it is there for both the other staff [b]AND[/b] the users. I also bolded the following part of the policy to hopefully avoid that argument, yet, I had expected it happening anyway. Either way. I quote: [center][quote]...other forum mods [b][u]and the original poster[/b] understand why...[/quote][/center] This sentence would imply that this policy is supposed to be enacted the way I stated above, not the way one might think. it is part of the reason why I suggested the staff member get a talking to, not a full blown warning or demotion as it is a messy policy that really [b]should be rewritten.[/b] if its intention was not to help the user. And as I had stated above, yes I know they did not make any attempt to contact a staff member but they really should not have to provided the above policy is correct. As a reason should've been provided. The user stated they had reposted it as they were unsure as to why it was deleted. Something which, could've easily been avoided. In addition, even if the policy was not meant to also support the user, then the [color=red]Community Team[/color] should make haste to rewrite it. We can only go off of things "as written" not "as intended". These aren't just some easily loophole able server rules, these should be proper policies acting as the foundation on which Zarp is built, there is no room for shakiness here. I'd imagine that the original writer, I assume [color=red]ChuteUK[/color] of them had put the thought into it, and included the sentence on purpose. Most policies are neat and well designed, I don't think this was a slip through the cracks, rather a purposeful addition to help the users in understanding what they did wrong. As the original author he is free to correct me if I am wrong.