Just a random thought, do you think posts which crossed the line and got reported and warned for be deleted?

Maybe depends on how drastic they are?Which will leave it to the mods which will take a look anyway on the posts since someone already reported it?Or should we keep it the way it is?

Discus

Yes tbh.

Nope. and I think the post reported should not enjoy the "edit post" rights.

As in after it gets the warning?

I don't think they should. The warned post serves as an example to others not to post things that are similar.

As soon as it gets reported. It makes the person who reported the post stupid.

I tend to quote the reported post which shades Britney and put a laugh icon at it.

(ｏ￣∇￣ｏ)♪

Mods get a copy of what you reported as soon as you report it so it's kind irrelavent I guess.

No, I mean the other people in the thread will think that the reporter is stupid for reporting a post that is not even reportable because he/she edited it already

Oh really?

Are we on the same forum?!

Lol, well, who cares if he got the warning for what he did I'm more than happy.

But that's just me.

Cuz' you did something which doesn't stand in the same line as the forum rules, you need to learn your leason.

The deleting is something extra that I was just thinking about, cuz' sometimes the post which got a warning cause more bad posts.

Most of them should be, mainly because it's annoying to have the next 2 pages of the topic quoting the post and only adding a laughing face.

yea came here to say this

I posted something yesterday to give examples of weak shade (which was clearly stated) and I got 2 points. I feel so bad, and everyone was quoting it

Nah. If that were the case, trolls wouldn't exist.

Nah