Wilkey,
I too am not in favor of locking threads after a certain time period, and I agree with Rod in the sense that people should be responsible for their own threads. However, Rod has said on several separate threads that we "do not delete posts"; I'd consider this as a rule not a "unsaid, but known rule".
What is clear is that this topic is unclear. Hence this thread to shed some light.
I'm not sure what is unclear. That one should not delete posts or the specific ramifications of doing so? I think that the former becomes clear to the member who does so, as well as the spectators at the time, and all subsequent readers of the thread in question. In fact, I would hazard that the lesson is more forcefulyl learned in the context of a transgression-correction.
I believe that I'm going to have to agree with Jholmes on this one. While many older members realize that it is the unwritten rule that we do not delete post, I think it needs to be spelled out a bit more. I see this more and more new guys making this mistake these days...While Tim's suggestion might be a bit drastic, I think this does need to be at the very least added to the written rules. That way New members have a clear definition available to them, as well as older members.
On the first point, are you really sure that the number of violations have gone up? Proportionally or in an absolute sense? Perhaps part of the perceived increase might be due to your own heightened awareness of the issue? I'm only saying that to act, we need to do so on some principled basis and not just on the perceptions of one or a few members whether it be me, you, or Rod. If we do it, it would be unjustifiable. If Rod did it, it would be arbitrary. Either case is sub-optimal.
I would support adding this guidance to
Eshaw's Newbie Guide or
Rod's CP New Member Guide in the form of a community custom.
I'll be honest, I don't have a strong opinion on this particular issue but what does concern me is that we may, someday, have so many rules we need a committee to monitor the adherence to them. In reality, we have that committee in the form of members and when someone breaks the unwritten rule it becomes very well known and the horse is flogged, beaten, mutilated, and disemboweled for everyone to see. Which, in essence, reaches more of the viewing audience than a written rule anyway.
Harsh, but in the worst of cases, this is the outcome.
Practically speaking, whether this is left as an unstated custom or codified as a "rule," I honestly cannot imagine how this would change things in terms of either newcomer awareness or in prosecution/enforcement. If, as Anthony reasonably conjectured, new members are unlikely to read or read carefully the existing documents, then writing this down will not change the awareness aspect. If after it has been codified, a member transgresses, then what? Will there be official penalties? Will it then become a bannable offense? I'm guessing no. What will likely happen is that the offending member will get corrected, he'll act, the community will react, and life will go on.
So, if there is no net effect and no net benefit to making it a codified rule, then why do it?
Wilkey