Deleting stories

It has never ceased to amaze me how it’s possible to dig out stories on the site from years ago that sound similar to a recently posted one, or how some stories have become memes in their own right - like blue on de ting or the Trash Room.

Because of this kind of collective memory I was quite saddened this morning to see one of the most engaged-with stories in recent months was deleted, likely because the comments with very few exceptions went after the OP like a pack of rabid dogs. Deservedly so, I might add, but still.

Is this really the right way of dealing with it, though? NAR is hardly considered a place you go for uplifting stories anyway, so should we really just delete stories because the reception wasn’t as expected? For better or worse this story was posted, it was read, people had opinions about it - and then poof, it’s gone. Without the Disqus link you can’t even get to the comments anymore.


Maybe they should have a new tag for what would be deleted stories, but keep the stories, just filtered by this tag.

Not Always… huh, what’s the opposite of “deleted”?


Not Always Well Received


Not always binned


I would hazard a guess that the policy on deleting stories changed. Nowadays, if a story gets badly received, it gets deleted; given that this hasn’t happened on older stories, there is probably a legacy clause, something like “if it was there before the policy changed, it stays”.

Which i guess makes sense; NAR wants people to submit stories, and if someone sees a story where the OP has been ripped to shreds, they might be reluctant to do so.


I also can’t imagine NAR staff having the time or resources to keep an eye on all of those older stories either unless someone flags them for something more major (medical misinfo, bigotry, etc.) to bring them back to their attention. Older stories also rarely gain notable traction again anyways, especially if they don’t meet the criteria for the “Popular” tab so it’s likely not even worth going back to re-vet them.


I 100% agree.

Which story was it?

The one about the guy who got banned from a pharmacy where they, apparently, kept messing up his wife’s prescriptions.


For those who have not read it but are curious…

Incidentally, GuyYouMetOnline has explained his mistake. It wasn’t particularly clear, and i had to read through his response several times before it FINALLY clicked (and even tgen it was because I’d read his other comments and it finally twigged). I have suggested that he tells others, and also pointed out thay he wasn’t very clear. He said he didn’t know how to be clearer, so i suggested what he might want to consider saying. Will he? We shall see.

But as i see it, this is what happened.

GYMO is not a fan of the comment section jumping on the OP; he will frequently offer alternative scenarios which offers another point of view (and i don’t think that’s a bad thing to do).

He read this story, but somehow missed the bit where the patient’s prescription got lost.

Seeing no reason for the customer to be angry, he then focused on the bit where the OP said the orders were not quite right (i forget the OP’s exact words). He tgen drew on his own experience where he has seen medication packaging had changed, even the shape of the pills, and remembered that he had been caught out with thinking he’d got the wrong prescription.

So he gets to the end of the story, thinking the OP acted appropriately, going by the angry behaviour of the customer.

He then sees the comment section ablaze with angry comments directed at the OP. I suspect he wasn’t reading our comments in detail, otherwise he would have seen frequent mentions of the misfiled prescription.

So he did what he usually does in such circumstances and posts why he believes the OP behaved appropriately.

And then things go completely mad.

For a while, he defends OP, but at some point he finally realises that the OP did make a monumental error. He even says that he is not defending that action. So now, he is defending his previous words, but not making it clear that his defence is basically “I posted what i thought was right, based on me thinking OP hadn’t made a mistake”

GYMO’s biggest mistake is not actually saying the precise words “I was wrong”

Ive not finished, but i need to go and get the quote he said to me that made it click on how he reacted. BIAB


Back again.

I was asking (well, pleading: “Why, just… why?”) GYMO why he was so intent on defending OP. His response:

Fine, you want to know why? Because I know what that looks like, because I make the same mistake myself. I did it in this very comment section. People here turn against OPs for no reason so often that any instance where it might be justified comes off as just more bullsh*t. If something is done constantly for no reason, then instances where there is a reason will look like there’s still none.

So yeah, I think that’s what happened in this story. I think it because the OP looks to be viewing the actual complaint the same way I respond to hate on OPs that might be deserved

But, as i said, his trying to clear up his mistake is hampered by his apparent inability to make himself clear. I did point out that while he was seeing another example of the comment section piling on the OP, we were seeing another example of him defending the indefensible.

He is also hampered by not everyone knowing how to view the comments page, and so may only be seeing his responses in notifications and the context is lost.

So to cut a long story short (too late!), if you do get a reply from GYMO, try and remember he is no longer on that OP’s side!

Comment section page


Well done for trying to reason with them but tbh I haven’t had much time for the guy since they defended an OP calling someone a homophobic slur “because words have no inherent meaning other than the intent of the user”. If that’s the length GYMO will go to in defending OPs just because they don’t like it when the comment section turns on them then GYMO is no more than a troll IMO.

I ended up drawing from the Tao of Keanu Reeves on that occasion and just bidding him good night but he really would have made an etymologist weep.


That would make sense if GYMO hadn’t spent a subthread arguing that even if the only example given was the pharmacy’s mistake, everything previous must have been the customer being unreasonable.

He read it. He saw the monumental error. And he’s still defending the OP.


He hasn’t posted anything since his last comment about not being sure how to make himself more clear. I’m waiting to see what he posts next before I decide if he’s changed.


I wouldn’t hold your breath. I once got him to admit that his whole argument was based on having misread something I wrote and that very grudging acknowledgement was his last action on the matter - no amending his earlier remarks or removing his downvote (he can’t seem to disagree without downvoting).


I often try to give the benefit of the doubt to the more ambiguous situations in stories, and I know that’s annoyed some people over the years because I don’t immediately jump on the “Burn the heretic!” bandwagon.

But holy crap, the OP in that story says WHEN the prescriptions are filled wrong, WHEN prescriptions get filed under the wrong name, WHEN the pharmacy messes up - and then the guy gets banned for trying to enforce people wearing masks. And the OP is gleeful about this.

Maybe OP is one of those pharmacists who ‘vaccinated’ customers with saline?


I mean, he did post multiple comments at the same time as that one, all continuing to restate his belief that the previous incidents weren’t mistakes by the pharmacy. And his belief that OP can only be so dismissive of that genuine scr*w-up if there was a pattern of previous incidents that weren’t mistakes.

Not to mention that he absolutely did not miss the bit about the final, monumental error, because he was referencing it as such three days ago. I think you’re giving him way too much credit here, and if he posts again he will not have changed. I’m willing to put money on it :slight_smile:


I think we can at least agree that he hasn’t been doing himself any favours with what he has been posting.