RexSystem1 voteMerged from #1062originally by @Zambito1 on GitHub1 reply
This may seem obvious to you, but as I am someone who has never moderated a group larger than people I would call my friends, can you elaborate on what the function of "evidence preservation" is? Why do you need that?
I will also say, I saw the discussions in the Visionary chat regarding this, and I think that it's safe to say people were misunderstanding and misrepresenting what your are proposing here. Privacy is a touchy subject, and I err against retention that I consider unecessary, but it is clear that you thought about the privacy side of this (in the disaccociation, explicit representation in the UI). The main issue for me is: why?
RexSystem1 voteMerged from #1062originally by @Juliaxe on GitHub
Do I misunderstand your suggestion? It seems the idea is that the evidence is preserved by keeping the message publicly available - but in my experience usually you want to delete rule breaking messages
This feature feels like it would just stop the user from deleting their remaining messages (which probably weren't the reason for their ban anyway) after they're banned?
Then you misunderstood my suggestion. A "logging" channel is exactly what it suggests - a channel to log things in such as moderation logs or proof. This channel type would not prevent a user from deleting their own messages manually. Rather, when the Privacy Dashboard is used, messages in a "logging" channel will not be deleted but the user will be disassociated from the message.
The offending messages THEMSELVES (which you'd take a screenshot or video of) would be deleted by a moderator, then logged as it's own message in a "logging" channel with the screenshot or video proof attached to that message INSIDE the "logging" channel.
Thread
Comment by @Zambito1
Comment by @Juliaxe