1

This question was removed by one of our new moderators. It indicates being "marked as spam or rude or abusive", which by itself sounds ambiguous. The revision history is here.

Besides the reason for removal being rather unclear, one should bear in mind that the post already had an upvoted answer with follow-up comments by both another user (interestingly, another moderator, who suggested me to elaborate on the last paragraph of my answer), and the OP himself.

Although the post makes references to video games, consoles, and few other devices (?), it falls short of what one would call "spam".

One can only speculate that perhaps what prompted the flagging and removal was one specific phrase by the OP which --based on user GeorgeWhite's comment/reaction-- appears to touch on racism (?) and slavery. But even in that case, editing to remove that single expression would have been far more commensurate than removing the entire post (that is, including the contract-law answer thereto and clarificatory comments).

Therefore, I think the post at issue should be restored. That would be more consistent with that moderator's pre-election vision to "keep potentially useful questions open, even if they need a little TLC" (whatever TLC means). That post belongs in that category, among other reasons, because the answer clarifies that something labeled as "gift" may actually qualify as compensation or consideration under contract law.

1

I would ask for this question and its answer to be promptly undeleted. I am willing to edit it to remove any offensive language, which seems to be limited to one sentence in a fairly long post, provided someone places a comment alerting me to the undeletion. I agree with Iñaki Viggers here. I read this question and did not flag it, and i would probably have answered it had Iñaki Viggers not done so, and might have gotten back to giving a second answer.

Indeed I am tempted to repost an edited version.

  • I had upvoted this answer upfront and now I'm also marking it as accepted, given your effort (as well as feetwet's) toward having the underlying post restored. Other than the racist (?) expression in that post, I still think that the OP's question evidently was intelligible enough to you, to me, and to those who upvoted the answer, whence deletion was unwarranted and shouldn't have required the diligence both you and @feetwet spent therein. Regardless, thank you both for your help on this. – Iñaki Viggers Sep 29 '19 at 19:59
3

Thanks for raising this and for your thoughtful answer in the underlying Q&A.

I deleted it and felt that the post needed more than a little TLC. In addition to GeorgeWhite's comment, it contained other adverse language. Further, the question's underlying premise entailed an agreement to violate a separate contract, and the question had accumulated a number of down- and close-votes.

As you suggest, the issue of gifts as consideration is interesting, and perhaps the question could have been rewritten. That said, I do think it's editing would have required more than removing a single phrase and might have been a good setting for community involvement. An upside to badges like Refiner (and perhaps Lifejacket) is that they encourage answerers to become involved at the level of the full Q&A.

  • 1
    Thanks, but I disagree on those reasons. (1) I cannot find "other adverse language" in his post. (2) We cannot know whether the OP's agreement actually entailed violating a separate contract; and even if that were the case, removal is at odds with what was recently addressed on LawMeta. (3) The question only had 2 VTC (short of 5) and 3 downvotes, and users can simultaneously downvote and VTC a question, whence adding downvotes to VTC's for purposes of removal amounts to double counting. – Iñaki Viggers Sep 14 '19 at 18:20
  • @IñakiViggers Perhaps we just disagree on this one, which seems encouraged. That said, I'd probably upvote a Q&A that you initiate and answer that slims the question to the relevant particulars. – Pat W. Sep 14 '19 at 18:44
  • 1
    I am more concerned about the subjectivity with mod-powers and the drastic approach of political correctness at the expense of everything else, since these depart from what moderation is about. Also, creating a new version of that Q&A entails significantly more effort than your perception that "the post needed more than a little TLC". – Iñaki Viggers Sep 14 '19 at 18:58
  • 2
    Deletion of that question is not about political correctness, it's about maintaining quality Q&A. The question as-is, is not good enough, there are multiple issues with it. If and when someone fixes those issues, it can and should be undeleted. Ignoring fundamental SE processes because of a misplaced opposition to "political correctness" does not really convince one to reconsider the decision. Also, the idea that "the post needed more than a little TLC" means exactly that rewriting entails significant effort in order to attain sufficient quality. – Nij Sep 14 '19 at 23:25
3

I do not agree that the deletion is about political correctness; instead, it is about civilized behavior. Law SE (and SE in general) is a very civilized venue for question asking and answering. Since posts do not require advance moderator approval, it's not as civilized as some venues (usually paid) that I am familiar with. The first cut, IMO, is whether we want to degenerate into barbarism. If we agree that we don't, then the question is, what edit could be done to make this a civilized question? A user with an interest in salvaging the question could fix the question. I am not suggesting that someone should just remove the "indian giver" line: it needs an entire overhaul. It should not be undeleted without such an overhaul.

Ordinary users with enough rep have the power to rewrite other people's Q&A, where we hope that the user remains faithful to the intent of the original text (pun intended).

  • I would have no problem with the removal OP's single phrase, but your mention of overhaul reflects that doing so would not have sufficed. That is where we enter subjectivity, micromanaging others' posts, and the need for mind reading to try meeting everyone's personal taste. The OP's question was intelligible enough to allow for a fairly developed answer that the OP as well as others evidently understood. – Iñaki Viggers Sep 14 '19 at 20:24
  • I don't advocate micromanagement, and I do hold that users must live with the (minimal) consequences of their choices. Therefore, deletion is the only reasonable solution. – user6726 Sep 14 '19 at 20:29
  • In this instance I wouldn't consider deletion a minimal consequence or even reasonable; at least not when anyone having enough rep and taking issue with the phrase could have edited an otherwise intelligible and fully formulated question. Instead, I think that coming up with stringent approaches of that sort will only drive away users, just like when they are reprimanded for allegedly asking for "legal advice" or when they are mocked at. – Iñaki Viggers Sep 14 '19 at 20:37
3

I have now edited the question to remove the offensive language, and also to remove irrelevant comments and generally trim the question to a more useful state. I ask that it be undeleted in the light of that edit.

  • Thanks for tackling this; I definitely concur with the undelete. – Pat W. Sep 28 '19 at 11:41
0

David Siegel's modifications of the original post are inspired. I am particularly glad that the change was not just a one-phrase deletion, but an excising of all of the detritus that made the post delete-worthy. Every essential aspect of the questions was retained, and no micro-management was engaged in.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .