The items highlighted in RED should be edited and removed. Then her post would for the most part look like any other COED AD placed on a regular basis.
Originally Posted by Still Looking
Boy, surely the current poll results aren't reflective of what members really think....
You've a point regarding ROS commentaries. I've been wondering about it lately. Still haven't decided if that's the best way to handle it in this case, though. It's clear cut to me that SC's comments should have been edited out if the problem was discovered earlier, but once everyone else chimed in, the dynamic's changed. I can't yet figure out why, but it doesn't feel right having everyone else's post edited.
On a broader note......
It's common seeing ROS commentaries in reviews. My initial instinct is that whenever the commentaries suggest that there were some negative contents within the ROS when it was a "Yes" review, those commentaries should be in private tags. Eg. "Sounds like you should have given a 'No' ", "She should have let you known in advance that Aunt Flo was visiting", "etc......these commentaries were in reviews that would have looked positive to non-PA members otherwise.
What's the right thing to do? Gauging by reviewer's intent, it would seem plausible that he did not want the provider/non-PA members to know about the negative aspects. Yet from many hobbyists' point of view, they think the reviewer should man up and "be honest" about the "yes/no" recommendation and/or include some of the negative details in the "physical description" section so non-PA guys would know. There's a conflict in interest between the OP and the other hobbyists. Whose interest gets priority? Should those commentaries be edited out or be placed in private tags?
The lines are often blurred and if you start editing one, you'd be held accountable to take consistent actions for all other similar posts. It's a judgement call and I think the mods would only open themselves up to more issues once they start editing close-call commentaries.
On a separate note....
It's easy to nitpick and call the mods out on every judgement call. I don't always agree with their decisions, but I respect that they had their own rationale for making the decision they did, and especially since they're volunteering their time, they sure as hell don't deserve every member calling them out on every move.
Having said that, it's also healthy to keep the mods in check every now and then. If there are blatant ball-drops, they need to be called out. Can't say I disagree with some of the other call outs, but I'd be careful drawing the line between trying to make a mod resign vs reforming the way things are done. Does the end justify the means?