Moderators deleting posts on CNN

First, the rules

So, links aren't a substitute for actual writing. When you drop a link, you really should include a brief rundown of what's actually in there—maybe a headline, a quick summary, or just a key quote... something to give context.

In two posts that ended up getting deleted, I did provide a link.

http://cnn.com/en/2014/world/27916

I included the title:

San Francisco burning: Immigrants set fire to hundreds of cars

And a quote:

Unrest broke out after police in San Francisco shot an older immigrant last week who, according to official reports, threatened officers with a machete. However, left-wing activists argue the root cause of the unrest is systemic racism within the local police force—which they claim is driving the protests currently centered in the Compton suburbs, where about 80 percent of the population is comprised of Turks, Somalis, and Arabs from the Middle East. Media outlets are reporting that the unrest is also spreading to Detroit and Seattle.

Everything was done strictly by the book based on the instructions in the first post, yet my posts were still wiped...

The reason?

You missed the fact that The Evening News broke this story, then issued an apology just hours later because they accidentally reposted news from 2013.

So, what was even the point of that post—or any of the comments following it?
If you actually bother to scroll to the bottom of that CNN link, you'll find this:

In today's print and digital editions of The Evening News, October 17, 2015, we published a report titled "San Francisco burning: Immigrants set hundreds of cars on fire."

We apologize to the embassy and our readers; a production error occurred, and our standard fact-checking process failed to catch the outdated nature of this report.

The Evening News Editorial Board.

CNN picked up the story in good faith, so we owe our readers an apology as well.

Maybe try reading the actual article before filing a complaint next time.

Charles Fox10 said:And of course, you missed the fact that The Evening News was the one who broke this—only to issue an apology a few hours later because they accidentally posted a story from 2013.

So, my question is... what was even the point of that post, or any of the other comments reacting to it? It’s all a bit moot, isn't it?

And if you actually take a second to look at that CNN link again, I am positive you'll find this sitting right there at the bottom of the page:

Maybe, just maybe, try reading the actual article before filing a complaint next time...

I don't bother with the fine print—that mindset cost me dearly back when we switched over to the dollar...😉

so don't come complaining to me if someone sends you a DM with a response like yours.

At 11:07 you posted a deleted message, yet at 11:06, the post right before yours already exposed it. If you somehow missed the thread above yours, how did you miss the one below where this is being sorted out? Or perhaps the detailed explanation on the next page? All these posts were made roughly 30 minutes apart, all staying strictly on topic—yet yours is the outlier. You didn't find that odd?

Do you honestly believe any of us should be spending our time chasing down users via PMs just because they aren't paying attention, on top of our moderation duties?

So, you claim you don't read the fine print, and that’s why you got burned over those few bucks? Honestly, just read what you sign and pay attention to which thread you're posting in.

Unfortunately, when it comes to politics, there’s just no point in trying to have a real conversation anymore—not with the way party hacks behave, nor with how stubborn certain users can be, or even how the mods handle things... it’s all become a bit futile.

So, I only really drop by those threads to post something that backs up my own take on things, and honestly, that’s about it.

I don't bother reading the replies, and I certainly don't spend hours hovering over a single topic.

That’s why you guys are here—the mods. You’re the ones who have to watch everything, stay on guard, constantly update stuff, and sometimes even make up rules on the fly just because that's what the owner wants.

It’s a narrow view, though... it doesn't really account for the full spectrum of situations you all find yourselves stuck in.

I’m not sure if you’re actually on a payroll or not, but let’s just say the boss thinks pretty highly of you—you’re sitting at number eight on his list.