Samsung while I question some of your recent actions you are wrong I do not dislike you.
Having read a post you say never existed I reported it, re read your Friends whole post history and tell me it was not warlike quite often.
PM yes you can lock posters out, but they work well.
Posters can swap e mail addresses and get to know one another.
They can talk about posters who have a history of making trouble even warn new chums.
I disagree with most things PALE says.
But after being taunted, told I was a coward, I put my full name into a post.
How hard is it to track a bloke who has a lifetime nick name of Belly if you know his first name?
Trouble came soon after in my workplace and here, lies and insults used in real life by another union came to OLO.
Just in the last week a poster threw my full name at me as a weapon in an OLO post.
I proudly am who I am but do not fall for it.
Consider this those asking for full disclosure have been asked very many times to answer just who are they?

Dear Forrest Gumpp,

At the conclusion of this thread will you summarise the recommendations in a form that will make it easy for OLO to implement them if they choose to do so?

phillips:"In my opinion, the CSA employee needs to be contacted by the site."

The CSA employee in question hasn't shown her face here since she was clearly shown to be a liar by her own statements, just as she was shown to be incompetent at her job by her own actions. Thanks for the opportunity to clear that up.

BTW, the CSA employee in question is the only one who could know I'm speaking of her, since I never mentioned a surname. I guess guilty consciences trouble the most strident ideologues occasionally, eh, especially after they fail dismally in their attempts to cover up evidence of their dishonesty.

Anansi spoke of removal of comments leaving confusing gaps in threads. Not in all cases does this occur, it would seem.

I think an example may exist (if that is the right word) in the comments thread to the article "The SIEVX: conspiracy or tragedy?", see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7899&page=0 .

A day or two ago I noticed that that topic had changed its position relative to other topics in the index as displayed in order of recency of posting, but while still showing 69 comments having been made.

A visit to the thread revealed an additional post had been made by userID 'franklin', a post I was sure had not been there previously when the comments total had been showing 69. Just out of curiosity I would like to know which post was removed. It is not obvious from the context that a post has been removed. A couple of posts I thought might have attracted moderator intervention were still present. If there was 'hard numbering' of posts in a thread I would at least know where the now removed post had stood, and knowing that, my mind might be jogged to recall it if I had previously paid any attention to it.

Or can the comment counter be tweaked?

Anyone know where the post-removal hole was in the old SIEV?

In partial and tangential support of Antiseptic's preference for post indelibility, perhaps its time for legislation insulating online fora from legal liability relating to comments made therein by third parties? The issue would still remain as to in what circumstances, and in accord with what protocols, poster-identifying information could be demanded of the Forum administration in connection with any legal action being taken against a poster over comments.

My imagination leaps to really, really tough requirements (including large forfeitable cash deposits) being placed upon any entity initiating action for damages, as a deterrent to the mounting of legal actions as merely a means to the discovery of the true identity of any poster. And automatic disbarrment of vexatious advocates.

Forrest Gump:"legislation insulating online fora from legal liability relating to comments made therein by third parties?"

Have there been any successful prosecutions of forum administrators over comments placed on their sites?

I've seen a couple of examples of sites removing posts for claimed legal reasons, and I've also seen examples of sites making the legal threats public and refusing to remove posts. I've not yet seen a threatened litigation carried through.

I do like your idea of a bond or other such substantive proof of genuine intent being required of potentially vexatious litigants. The last thing we need is an expansion of the "SLAP" litigation beloved of many large organisations seeking to quell dissenters.

Already on this site, one small but very vocal group has threatened me with defamation for pointing out possible malfeasance in their operation, based entirely on their own claims and statements here. I invited them to proceed, but despite much sound and fury, their claim signified nothing. It did waste a considerable amount of my time and may have cost me for legal advice if I had been concerned that I had any sort of case to answer. They also dragged the forum administration into the mess, to no good purpose. I feel sure that lodgement of a bond would have stopped all that.

Belly, thanks for your support on the topic of the infamous deleted post. Some people seem to go for the cover up as a matter of course. The theory is "burn the evidence and deny, deny, deny".

It is interesting that those that hint at (threats of) legal action on this Forum are usually those that speak the loudest for freedom of speech, particularly against minority groups in our own country.