Making Rule unable to remove entire threads of conversation

[Rule]

What's wrong with you, Adron?  You talk about freedoms yet you have deleted my response to your above post about 5 times.  I think that's an incredible abuse of administrative power.

[Adron]

What's wrong with you, Adron?  You talk about freedoms yet you have deleted my response to your above post about 5 times.  I think that's an incredible abuse of administrative power.

I had to verify that my changes to the forum configuration had been successful. For that, I had to make you try to delete my post.

[Rule]

It was something I brought up not because I was trying to delete your post, but because I assumed it was some special abusive treatment to go along with your deletion rampages.

You could have just asked? 

Besides, I think it's funny that you restrict everyone's freedom to delete their own post, then write a wildly unrealistic misinterpretation of my question 'in the name of freedom'.

[Adron]

Besides, I think it's funny that you restrict everyone's freedom to delete their own post, then write a wildly unrealistic misinterpretation of my question 'in the name of freedom'.

Not everyone's, Rule. Only yours.

[Rule]

That's extremely disrespectful.  I think you should lose your administrative power. 

[TehUser]

Assumption #1: Adron believes that most freedoms should be maintained.
Assumption #2: Rule believes that there are times when deterrent action needs to be taken to prevent societal damage.
Assumption #3: Adron is deleting Rule's posts.

Fact: Rule's posts favor curtailing freedom in the best interests of society.

Therefore, we can conclude that Adron is acting in society's best interests by attempting to preserve its freedoms.  He is doing so by deterring Rule from posting about other ways to infringe upon people's rights.  Thus, Adron is, in fact, doing exactly what Rule advocates.  Unfortunately, because it's now directly applicable to him, Rule doesn't like it. 

[Rule]

Maybe you don't realize that assumptions 1 and 2 aren't mutually exclusive.

You're really manipulative, aren't you?

Maybe you should have changed assumption #1 to be
"Adron believes that all freedoms should be maintained at all costs," and then you two could be nutjobs together.

[Mephisto]

Assumption #1: Adron believes that most freedoms should be maintained.
Assumption #2: Rule believes that there are times when deterrent action needs to be taken to prevent societal damage.
Assumption #3: Adron is deleting Rule's posts.

Fact: Rule's posts favor curtailing freedom in the best interests of society.

Therefore, we can conclude that Adron is acting in society's best interests by attempting to preserve its freedoms.  He is doing so by deterring Rule from posting about other ways to infringe upon people's rights.  Thus, Adron is, in fact, doing exactly what Rule advocates.  Unfortunately, because it's now directly applicable to him, Rule doesn't like it. 

While I don't necessarily agree with what Rule believes in specific politics, I think that it's childish you would post this.  How is removing Rule's moderation powers in the best interest of this society?  How does this situation reflect what Rule believes or has tried to argue?  I find Rule's posts a great contribution to the wildly out of control political debates on this forum and liked reading you and Rule's arguments.

[Adron]

While I don't necessarily agree with what Rule believes in specific politics, I think that it's childish you would post this.  How is removing Rule's moderation powers in the best interest of this society?  How does this situation reflect what Rule believes or has tried to argue?  I find Rule's posts a great contribution to the wildly out of control political debates on this forum and liked reading you and Rule's arguments.

See, removing Rule's powers to delete posts he doesn't agree with should be in the best interest of this society, assuming that you enjoy reading interesting discussions rather than having them deleted (note; deleted; not moved to trash can).

[Rule]

Out of the 2 years I've moderated here, I've deleted 2 posts.  One of them was a few days ago, and it was a poll I had started.  I deleted it because the question had confused several people, and I was planning on reposting a very similar poll.

If you've got an issue with what I did, I think you owe it to me to talk to me first.  Instead of doing that, you passive aggressively abused your administrative powers to remove my deletion privileges (even for my own posts), and then passive aggressively deleted my posts until I commented about what you had done.

[Adron]

The main problem I saw was the ability of people to delete their own topics with all replies to them. I was pretty sure that we had already disabled that. I suppose it was a misconfiguration. But, no misconfiguration that cannot be corrected.

[TehUser]

While I don't necessarily agree with what Rule believes in specific politics, I think that it's childish you would post this.  How is removing Rule's moderation powers in the best interest of this society?  How does this situation reflect what Rule believes or has tried to argue?  I find Rule's posts a great contribution to the wildly out of control political debates on this forum and liked reading you and Rule's arguments.

I think it's stupid that you would post this.  Especially because you obviously don't understand the content of the original post.  But, since I can't expect everyone to put two and two together, I suppose I can lend you a hand.

Rule has repeatedly argued that there are situations in which it is in the best interests of society to curtail freedoms of the individual.  He has not, however, done anything to justify that opinion beyond making up probabilities and expressing his own personal opinion on the matter.

Adron, on the other hand, values freedom.

Rule deleted a post that contained an argument Adron was enjoying.  Outright deleted, not moved to the trash can.  Now, that argument that Adron found interesting is gone.  Everyone's freedom to read that argument is gone.

Therefore, in the best interest of society, Adron restricted a right of a sole member in order to make society better for everyone else.

All in all, this is very much aligned with what Rule has been preaching.  In fact, so similar that I will put it into a Rule-esque argument.

The argument is as follows (A couple words changed here and there from Rule a few pages ago):

For example, if we are in a situation where a freedom will facilitate deleting interesting topics and someone intends to use it to wipe out a slew of interesting posts, you realize you are saying you would prefer that man be legally allowed to delete those posts at the most probable expense of hundreds of thousands of innocent posts.  His right to delete the posts is more important than those interesting topics.  "We should only take away that right after he deletes the posts." Hmm......  How about instead of almost certainly charging him for the death of hundreds of thousands of poor, innocent topics, we just legally prevent the problem from arising?  Hey since I have an infinite number of situations to pick from, lets add that if he is legally allowed to delete the posts there is a 99.999% chance he will use it to kill innocent threads, but if there is a law preventing him from deleting hte[sic] threads, there is absolutely no chance he will cause harm to innocent threads.

Didn't that work out great?

All Adron did was follow Rule's logic in an applicable situation.