<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Dovster:
If the moderators delete all such posts, how are those who don't see them supposed to be able to judge?
Let me repeat what I said earlier: I don't believe that anyone's reputation is damaged by being flamed -- only by being the flamer.
Unintentionally, by taking the flame out, we are protecting the flamer and no one else.</font>
I disagree. By leaving the offending comment, it sends the message that people can get away with flaming for the purpose of getting the thread locked and preserving it perfectly so that it can be brought up again and again in the future.
Why do you need to see what the original flame was to judge whether it was a mild flame or a bad flame? We have to trust the moderators to do their job and they (at least from what I've seen) operate co-operatively. If you don't trust the moderators to do the job, then why have moderators? Or, why don't you apply to be moderator?
Doesn't seeing "(offending comment deleted by moderator)" and "[Edited by moderatorX]" already speak volumes about the post and the poster?
I've seen this on a number of occasions where the offending poster quickly goes in and edits his post again to remove the evidence that it had been zapped by the moderator. The original flame does not re-appear, so I'd say this technique is rather effective. Plus, we all get to see what a chickensh** the offending poster is. Why do you need to see the original flame to be able to come to the same conclusion?
FewMiles..