Disappearing posts

[Abd]

Last night, I made a number of posts. I know of nothing wrong with them, but perhaps there is some rule I've overlooked. The posts were visible, and in at least one case, there was an other response after mine. This morning, all were gone.

I understand that the moderator(s) have the right to remove posts, under certain conditions. However, I've been an on-line moderator since the 1980s, and I'd never flat-out remove someone's writing without notifying them of the reason, by email or through the forum messaging facility. I received no notice. The posts haven't been moved, apparently, i.e., to a more proper forum, if I erred in that respect (but they were all replies to exising threads.)

So what happened? I'd rather not speculate.

[Dan Honemann]

As stated on its Introductory Page, “The Question and Answer Forum is provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised”, and it is also noted there that “the Robert's Rules Association and the authorship team reserve the right to remove any postings deemed by them to be sufficiently irrelevant, erroneous or misleading to warrant such action.”

[Chris Harrison]

From the main page of the RONR Q&A forum:

The Question and Answer Forum is provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. Neither the Robert's Rules Association nor the authorship team for Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised necessarily agrees with or endorses any statement posted on it. However, while no responsibility is assumed for anything posted, the Robert's Rules Association and the authorship team reserve the right to remove or otherwise edit, in whole or in part, scurrilous, libelous, obscene, or patently offensive messages and any postings deemed by them to be sufficiently irrelevant, erroneous or misleading to warrant such action. They further reserve the right to discontinue or modify this forum at any time in the future, including by deleting older messages.

Having read your posts last night there were some things you had said that ventured too far off the RONR ranch that I suspect our Moderator deemed your comments to be erroneous and/or misleading (such as talking about the "nuclear option") and remove the postings. If I remember correctly our Moderator has said in the past that he will not edit posts that were too far off the ranch to remove the objectionable language so the whole thing will disappear.

[Abd]

From the main page of the RONR Q&A forum:

Having read your posts last night there were some things you had said that ventured too far off the RONR ranch that I suspect our Moderator deemed your comments to be erroneous and/or misleading (such as talking about the "nuclear option") and remove the postings. If I remember correctly our Moderator has said in the past that he will not edit posts that were too far off the ranch to remove the objectionable language so the whole thing will disappear.

That's sufficiently offensive that if this is sustained, I won't participate here. The problem isn't the removal, per se, it's the removal without notice.

The "nuclear option" is exactly what the move to force a vote against a filibuster, contrary to the standard cloture rules, through an appeal of a ruling of the presiding officer, was called in media coverage of the issue for the U.S. Senate. The parliamentary move was what was being discussed. The point was that this is a very serious move, even though "legal," in that, procedurally, it's correct, but it involves members voting to confirm as legitimate what they plainly know is not. They'd better have a good reason! Or else they are damaging the organization, even if they are in the majority at that meeting.

Given that my comment has been deleted, I can't tell if I said anything erroneous there. I'm thinking that you believe that the very words, "nuclear option" were some kind of error.

I did not keep copies of those posts, because I never dreamed that they would be so summarily deleted, so the several hours that I put into them was wasted, and definitely some of that material was acceptable. In one case, I believe I corrected a serious error by others, but I asked about that.

Of course, my question was removed also. It seemed to me that a motion to rescind is not an incidental motion, it's a main motion, and therefore an Objection to a Consideration of the Question is in order, and that matches my understanding of the substance of the issue, and I cited the 10th edition on this issue, since I haven't yet obtained the 11th. I was careful, I noted that citation was from the 10th.

I've had about forty years of experience with parliamentary procedure, and I've served as a parliamentarian, but don't consider myself an expert on it, overall, there can be large gaps in my knowledge. Yet in some narrow areas, I have substantial expertise, such as voting systems, especially various preferential voting systems.

What I need to know is whether or not my participation is welcome. I did quite a bit of reading last night, including reading everything I could find of the forum rules, and my posts violated none of them. Yes, the moderator has discretion, but there was no warning that removal without notice might occur, except for what was quoted (and what I acknowledged in my question here).

the Robert's Rules Association and the authorship team reserve the right to remove any postings deemed by them to be sufficiently irrelevant, erroneous or misleading to warrant such action.

This is standard, but did not lead me to expect that there would be a blanket removal of all posts, and I'm sure that all of them were not "sufficiently irrelevant, erroneous, or misleading" to warrant removal.

I do understand that the moderator may have felt that I wrote too much for him or her to review. However, a notice to me by emal or through forum messaging would have taken seconds.

So I'd appreciate guidance on this, and I would suggest that the notice to readers be more clear, and that there be a reliable procedure for post removal. Please understand that I've been moderating mailing lists and on-line fora since the 1980s, and it's pretty easy to handle this in a fully democratic and open way, that does not cause damage.

I'd also like to recover my content, if possible. Thanks for your reply, Chris. I was a bit worried that this would disappear, too.

[Trina]

Despite your experience, the removal of posts is actually a very rare event around here. If you experienced disappearance of most of your posts, I would suggest looking carefully at the content of what you are posting. And I don't mean censorship of opinions; I mean paying attention to the purpose of the forum -- i.e. discussion of the rules in RONR (and their application to real-world situations).

edited to add: I did not see the missing posts, so I can't comment specifically on the content of your posts. I'm just speaking from personal experience with having a (very occasional) post disappear during the time I've participated here.

[Abd]

Thanks, Trina, of course. All of my posts were removed. I think there were about twelve (some were very short additional comments where I'd already commented, and then noticed something missing.)

I just posted again re the question I mention above.

All the posts were about the rules and application to real-world situations. Many questions on the forums, however, are not about the rules, really, and many, many responses are also not about the rules, per se, but about the underlying situation.

Take a look at the post I've linked to. It's a question about procedure, that asserts my understanding and asks for correction.

I can't look at the content because the posts were deleted. But they were relevant to questions, for sure, and to the rules, in general. I'm guessing that the moderator did not agree, or did not understand the relevance, which is what the comment above about "nuclear option" indicates to me. That wasn't a personal judgement, that is a common term for the tactic in question.

By the way, if it's a rare event, how would you know? Most people either would not notice, or would just go away mad.

[Guest Edgar]

Thanks, Trina, of course. All of my posts were removed.

Perhaps The Wrathful One simply had a bad day.

[Trina]

...

By the way, if it's a rare event, how would you know? Most people either would not notice, or would just go away mad.

I know it's rare in the case of my own posts, because I obviously have noticed when one of my own posts went missing.

I believe it is rare in general because I check in on the board fairly often, and only very rarely see things vanish. Comments from those appearing to give expert advice are probably held to a higher standard than comments from those clearly visiting the forum to ask questions.

[Abd]

Another post was deleted today, a brief post to this thread. It was civil and non-accusatory, and on-topic. There was no notice or explanation, so if the post violated some rule, I don't know what it was, I'd have to guess, and I don't like what I'd guess. What's the reality?

[Josh Martin]

The "nuclear option" is exactly what the move to force a vote against a filibuster, contrary to the standard cloture rules, through an appeal of a ruling of the presiding officer, was called in media coverage of the issue for the U.S. Senate. The parliamentary move was what was being discussed. The point was that this is a very serious move, even though "legal," in that, procedurally, it's correct, but it involves members voting to confirm as legitimate what they plainly know is not. They'd better have a good reason! Or else they are damaging the organization, even if they are in the majority at that meeting.

Given that my comment has been deleted, I can't tell if I said anything erroneous there. I'm thinking that you believe that the very words, "nuclear option" were some kind of error.

Well, the problem is that, as Mr. Honemann noted, this forum is for the discussion of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. The rules of the United States Senate do not fall into that category. The United States Senate does not use Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised as its parliamentary authority, and the nuclear option, cloture, and filibusters all deal with the customized rules of the United States Senate rather than with RONR.

What I need to know is whether or not my participation is welcome. I did quite a bit of reading last night, including reading everything I could find of the forum rules, and my posts violated none of them.

Your participation is welcome so long as you stay within the boundaries of RONR as much as possible, which is one of the forum's most important rules. This is the most common reason for a post to be removed.

[Abd]

Thanks, Josh.

Well, the problem is that, as Mr. Honemann noted, this forum is for the discussion of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. The rules of the United States Senate do not fall into that category. The United States Senate does not use Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised as its parliamentary authority, and the nuclear option, cloture, and filibusters all deal with the customized rules of the United States Senate rather than with RONR.

Sure. However, I did not assert, and do not believe, that the rules of the Senate are relevant to RONR. I merely used a widely-known term from the Senate which emphasizes the possibly harmful nature of disregard of Previous Question rules, it can cause "collateral damage," another non-RONR term.

A majority could, by the same means, bypass the rule that Previous Question requires a two-thirds vote. In this case we were talking about the rule that an Objection to the Consideration of the Question is out of order when applied to a motion to Rescind, presented at a new session. It had been suggested that one might make an improper Objection, but this objection could effectively be sustained by a majority vote. My comment was simply aimed at emphasizing that this kind of procedure is considered dangerous, and I consider it dangerous as a parliamentarian. What was being discussed was RONR and its application.

Your participation is welcome so long as you stay within the boundaries of RONR as much as possible, which is one of the forum's most important rules. This is the most common reason for a post to be removed.

Thanks for the welcome.

That principle, relevance to RONR, would obviously not apply to many questions considered here, in this particular forum, Questions or Comments about the Message Board. Why was a post removed from this forum? It was civil, on point as to what was being discussed here, it was not offensive. Sure, it wasn't about RONR, per se, but this forum is not about RONR, it's about the board.

And the real problem I've been pointing to is removal of good-faith posts,not vandalism, spam, or incivility, without any notice or explanation, which would take a moment with a PM. All we saw from Mr. Honemann was a note that moderators may remove posts, which we already knew, it goes without saying. It gives no guidance applicable to this situation. I was unaware until it was mentioned to me a bit earlier that he is the sole active moderator of this forum, I did not know, and he did not say, that he had removed the post.

I'm now keeping off-line copies of what I write here, if it's more than a few words. I never dreamed I'd need to do that.

[Josh Martin]

Sure. However, I did not assert, and do not believe, that the rules of the Senate are relevant to RONR. I merely used a widely-known term from the Senate which emphasizes the possibly harmful nature of disregard of Previous Question rules, it can cause "collateral damage," another non-RONR term.

Well, it's widely known, but it is generally used to refer to the United States Senate, or sometimes to legislative assemblies generally. The term is not generally applied to ordinary assemblies.

[Abd]

Thanks, Josh.

Well, it's widely known, but it is generally used to refer to the United States Senate, or sometimes to legislative assemblies generally. The term is not generally applied to ordinary assemblies.

By "widely known," I was referring to "nuclear option," but I did refer to cloture, another name for Previous Question, which I think you are talking about, when mentioning the "nuclear option." Same difference. Close debate and vote. Supermajority required. The Senate used to require two-thirds, same as RONR for Previous Question, until fairly recently.

The "nuclear option" was bypassing the supermajority requirement by the parliamentary maneuver suggested by some with the Objection issue, that was the context. It was just a term, not the substance of the discussion.

Were my posts really removed because I used a term from another -- but related -- context to refer to a basic problem in parliamentary procedure?

[Josh Martin]

By "widely known," I was referring to "nuclear option," but I did refer to cloture, another name for Previous Question, which I think you are talking about, when mentioning the "nuclear option." Same difference. Close debate and vote. Supermajority required. The Senate used to require two-thirds, same as RONR for Previous Question, until fairly recently.

The "nuclear option" was bypassing the supermajority requirement by the parliamentary maneuver suggested by some with the Objection issue, that was the context. It was just a term, not the substance of the discussion.

Were my posts really removed because I used a term from another -- but related -- context to refer to a basic problem in parliamentary procedure?

It's not quite as simple as nomenclature. The Previous Question, for instance, brings a motion to an immediate vote, which the motion for Cloture does not do (it limits debate, but it's hardly immediate). The term cloture also raises the specter of filibusters in people's minds, which are not permitted under the rules of RONR. So talking about "cloture" for ordinary assemblies may be more misleading than you would think at first.

[Abd]

It's not quite as simple as nomenclature. The Previous Question, for instance, brings a motion to an immediate vote, which the motion for Cloture does not do (it limits debate, but it's hardly immediate). The term cloture also raises the specter of filibusters in people's minds, which are not permitted under the rules of RONR. So talking about "cloture" for ordinary assemblies may be more misleading than you would think at first.

You are correct. The details differ greatly, but it wasn't the details of the Senate process I was talking about, but rather the "nuclear option," the tactic of using a majority vote to limit debate through manipulation of the rules, through the fact that the majority has the right to interpret and apply the rules, suspend them, etc. This less harmful in ordinary assemblies than it would be in the Senate. especially if done with care. I was only suggesting caution. People can resent it these devices.

I'm now understanding better what may have happened. Thanks for your attention, Josh, it's appreciated.

[cpnet]

I had one of two posts disappear this morning. Like Abd, I did not receive any notice that my post was moderated - it's just gone. I'm not sure if I broke a rule, or if there's just a bug in the forum software, so I'm not sure if I can/should re-post or not. I did reference a document about Board Fiduciary Duty, so maybe that was the problem if this was moderated? However, in my post I think I asked how a particular Fiduciary Duties would interact with RONR so it's not clear to me that my post would be outside the scope of these forums. I would like some guidance as to how RONR relates to/deals with Board Fiduciary Duty so if my post just got lost due to a bug, I'd like to re-post. Even if moderators can't explain why posts have been moderated, it would be helpful to know that posts were moderated.

[Dan Honemann]

As stated on its Introductory Page, “The Question and Answer Forum is provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised”, and it is also noted there that “the Robert's Rules Association and the authorship team reserve the right to remove any postings deemed by them to be sufficiently irrelevant, erroneous or misleading to warrant such action.”

Although a great deal of leeway is usually afforded those who are posting their own questions to threads which they have originated, responses posted to threads initiated by others are held to a higher standard. These may be deleted when they make assertions concerning legal requirements or rules not found in RONR, or raise further questions which may tend to mislead the original poster. These, of course, are not the only reasons why a post may be deleted, but they are most frequently the cause.

[Trina]

...

Although a great deal of leeway is usually afforded those who are posting their own questions to threads which they have originated, responses posted to threads initiated by others are held to a higher standard. These may be deleted when they make assertions concerning legal requirements or rules not found in RONR, or raise further questions which may tend to mislead the original poster. These, of course, are not the only reasons why a post may be deleted, but they are most frequently the cause.

I hope, then, that cpnet can repost his/her question about the interaction of fiduciary duties with the rules in RONR -- as a new topic, of course.

I'm assuming the poster tacked the question onto someone else's thread, thereby causing potential confusion to the original poster, as you describe.

[Dan Honemann]

I hope, then, that cpnet can repost his/her question about the interaction of fiduciary duties with the rules in RONR -- as a new topic, of course.

I'm assuming the poster tacked the question onto someone else's thread, thereby causing potential confusion to the original poster, as you describe.

Yes, he/she certainly can repost a question, but I would suggest avoiding any assertions about what he/she believes may be the law with respect to a board member's fiduciary obligations.

[cpnet]

Yes, he/she certainly can repost a question, but I would suggest avoiding any assertions about what he/she believes may be the law with respect to a board member's fiduciary obligations.

Fair enough... I will see if I can remember the question to repost, and I will be careful how I frame it.

It would be helpful to be notified when a post is moderated (so I know my message wasn't lost due to a bug or my own error) ... even if it was just a standard message such as, "Your post has been moderated please see our forum rules at xyz. Unfortunately we can not provide specific details about why your post was removed"