Since there is no mod log of any kind, how do we keep the admin accountable for his actions?

[MadWorld]

SVF may be small, but it has enough content to get memoryholed. If the admin decided to nuke mchat messages, regular posts, or entries from archive, in the name of upholding no-dox rule, how do we know what was removed and if the act was justified?

As @SearchVoat has already stated somewhere, he has already deleted entries related to b4p's "dox" and SV's confession. And he will continue to delete any entry deemed relevant to no-dox rule. This is how far he is willing to go and there is no log to keep him accountable. Personally, I do not like it when anyone starts messing with archives, because that opens the door towards compromising the integrity of the data being preserved. We trust the archives, because the information is been preserved AS IS and the search engine will return the results as they are found.

I have dug around just enough to figure out the changes been made.

Cannot load XML: Premature end of data in tag r line 1
GET searchvoat.co/forum/mchat/archive?start=500
[HTTP/2 500 Internal Server Error 1973ms]

This error was due to the fact that @SearchVoat "deleted" that b4p's "dox" image prematurely. Anyone can verify that this message was not deleted and was the cause of the error (still is), by slowly "pushing" the entries off that page. The other two recent entries were also "deleted", most likely by applying a regular expression. I have found a few on the archive as well. I have not searched for other potential dox terms on the search engine, which might be logged for the purpose of further removing dox-related entries. The changes looked reversible. Maybe @SearchVoat had a second thought when he was doing it. Maybe he was in some way still willing to preserve the info AS IS, hence the soft "delete".

Remember what happened on reddit? That piece of shit who edited user's comments? I think @SearchVoat is at a crossroad very close to this path. To delete or to edit, neither is a good choice, although one may find his own actions more justifiable than others.

[SearchVoat]

SVF may be small, but it has enough content to get memoryholed. If the admin decided to nuke mchat messages, regular posts, or entries from archive, in the name of upholding no-dox rule, how do we know what was removed and if the act was justified?

As @SearchVoat has already stated somewhere, he has already deleted entries related to b4p's "dox" and SV's confession. And he will continue to delete any entry deemed relevant to no-dox rule. This is how far he is willing to go and there is no log to keep him accountable. Personally, I do not like it when anyone starts messing with archives, because that opens the door towards compromising the integrity of the data being preserved. We trust the archives, because the information is been preserved AS IS and the search engine will return the results as they are found.

You are correct in this:

Are you willing to go as far as deleting or redacting those entries from the archive, in order to achieve that no-doxxing rule?

Yes. I will remove posts which include identifying info. In the last couple of days I have removed posts and chat messages which include a certain user's photograph, or first and last name.

Regard the SV confession screenshots, that was a purely selfish abuse of my control over the data. As many of you know, I am engaged in family legal action and that stuff could hurt me and the kids IRL. While SVF is very precious to me, I have higher priorities:

Yes I deleted that screenshot for purely selfish reasons. No "rule" basis, nothing to do with doxing. I just don't want it falling into the wrong hands atm. You're perfectly entitled to post it, but I'd ask you as a favour not to. If you do, I'll probably delete it again. Can't justify it other than to say I'm in enough shit already and that post could cause me more.

I agree the lack of a mod log is a major problem.

The only reason we're using a phpBB forum is that I needed to put something up fast when Voat went down and this was the best I could come up with in short order. But it's a bastard to make modifications to. There are some limited mod logs here, I believe, but they reveal IP addresses and other contact info, and this issue hasn't really come up till now, so I haven't bothered to go down the path of fixing that. The risk of exposing private user info was too great.

I have dug around just enough to figure out the changes been made.

Cannot load XML: Premature end of data in tag r line 1
GET searchvoat.co/forum/mchat/archive?start=500
[HTTP/2 500 Internal Server Error 1973ms]

This error was due to the fact that @SearchVoat "deleted" that b4p's "dox" image prematurely. Anyone can verify that this message was not deleted and was the cause of the error (still is), by slowly "pushing" the entries off that page.

I'm surprised at that error message. When things ease up a bit I'll look into it. Anyway I don't deny I deleted messages.

The other two recent entries were also "deleted", most likely by applying a regular expression. I have found a few on the archive as well. I have not searched for other potential dox terms on the search engine, which might be logged for the purpose of further removing dox-related entries. The changes looked reversible. Maybe @SearchVoat had a second thought when he was doing it. Maybe he was in some way still willing to preserve the info AS IS, hence the soft "delete".

Posts can be soft-deleted and I think I've done that in most cases, so we can all come back and look at this later. Chat messages cannot. It's a third-party plugin which doesn't provide a "deleted" flag. This should be a simple change and I looked into it when this blew up but decided it was more important to remove messages than provide the soft-delete fallback. With hindsight that was the wrong choice. I'm going to see whether anything's preserved in backups but they're overwritten every 24 hours so it's doubtful.

[SearchVoat]

I'm going to see whether anything's preserved in backups but they're overwritten every 24 hours so it's doubtful.

I looked; they're gone.

[antiliberalsociety]

You have higher priorities: AKA you're willing to betray whoever you have to in order to cover up your mistakes... I wouldn't say defending that pedophile did your family case a whole lot of good.