I can't link to the thread since it's been deleted, but I do have a screenshot.
Now, I don't know anything about patents, or if the patent in question even affects Danbooru. But, I'm not finding anything wrong with the OP expressing his concern, and certainly do not see anything that warrants its out-right deletion.
Maybe the thread was deleted because the OP changed his thread title to "delete delete" and replaced his thread's body with an apologetic message after seeing Log's reply. But even so, I don't think that would justify it.
If the thread was off-topic, or if it lost its meaning due to the original content being edited-out (which I attribute to Log's rudeness), why not just have it locked instead?
And for posterity, here's what the original post was edited to (as recovered from my browser's page-content history). The thread was deleted shortly after:
EDIT: Oh crap. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were a moderator. I retract my argument and I sincerely apologize. You are absolutely correct. I didn't realize you were a moderator, I don't want a mod sass ban. Please delete this thread and I will never darken your forums again.
On the note of your reply being rude, that's a personal interjection I shouldn't have put in there. (Being 'mean' to people new to the forum, and the issue of replies like that only spurring belligerent replies back are on-going qualms of mine, but they're out-of-scope for this discussion.) And your conclusion on him editing-out a back-talking reply does seem likely.
But nonetheless, could you explain how deleting the thread was justified?
He asked for the thread to be deleted, do we no longer comply with this request when the contents of the thread have been so completely purged? If I had the ability to lock it I would have probably done so immediately after seeing it so both points could have been recorded as such but he chose to purge it rather than let it quietly die.
The original thread was deleted because it read like spam.
Okay, I know I just said that discussing civility on the forum was out-of-scope, but I feel it's a big part of what happened.
The person who made the thread just messaged me back, and said that the reason he edited-out the OP and his second reply was because he was intimidated, and feared that he was getting on the mods' bad side, which would lead to him getting banned.
Those experienced with the forum and know how Danbooru works know that isn't true, and that Log being blunt isn't anything to worry about. But if you're new, you don't know that, and a reply like that can be really intimidating, and can make you feel like crawling away because you don't want to cause any trouble.
So, I mean, I sort of see your reasoning: it didn't have any meaningful discussion in it (yet), and the OP edited-out his content, making the thread mostly-useless. But the thing is, your conduct spurred him to do it in the first place.
I'm not asking you to apologize, and mentioning how this could have been avoided if he did more research is irrelevant. The issue here is on user and moderator conduct as a whole, not just this specific incident.
That said, Janitors editing/deleting threads and the issue of how new users are treated have been two things that have irked me for a while. I wanted to initially just limit the scope of this thread to the former, and discuss the latter in another thread, but the thread in question personified both, which I guess is why this has become a bit of a mish-mash.
To come to more of a conclusion, I made this thread to get some input on what people think of its deletion, and to also express that I'm sort of unhappy with how new users are treated sometimes. Albert has, in the past, expressed concerns regarding civility, and how to get more people to contribute to the site - and seeing someone get scared-off like that (yes, even if they need "more skin"), which I have seen numerous times in the past, works against that goal and reflects badly on the community.
I agree being civil is the best policy. Politely and rationally dealing with issues will lead to users more likely taking your criticism seriously understanding your argument and less likely to take offense or lash back. I think post #57304 discusses most of what needs to be said on this topic. That said aside, from the "fuck-all" which probably was a bit too harsh, Log's response isn't particularly uncivil.
On Deleting Posts:
Deleting off-topic threads is generally fine (no one wants to have to sift through spam even if it's locked). In this case it's marginally related to the site's operation, but would be much better directed to a PM to Albert if it was relevant. Sitting here, even locked, would be more likely to stir up controversy and cause trouble than promote any sort of productive conversation.
I agree with Log's decision in this case. Though it is a bit worrisome that he's usually the source of these "why is it deleted" threads. Unless something is off topic or harmful it should probably be locked rather than deleted if it needs intervention.
On Patent trolls:
Bleh, it really bothers me that in today's technology market every large company applies for and receives 20 year patents (in an industry where product life-cycles are generally about 4 years and shrinking) for every incremental advancement and common-sense implementation.
Rambus, Apple, etc make me sick in this regard. It makes no sense that a company should need to spend a ton of money on patents they had no part in producing simply to defend themselves against stepping on the toes of another company who did the same or for one companty to try to push everyone else out of the market and force a monopoly to exist until the technology is obsolete.
Well of courese not, nobody writes aricles citing the patent number. Amazon annotation patent (which is pretty much what Slashdot called it in it's severely underthought article) gives plenty of hits explaining what the patent was..
Rudeness? I was blunt, perhaps, but rude? Perhaps the edit was a little too blunt but it was clearly someone who just read the slashdot article and ran here to the forums.
This is old news by now, but just to make it perfectly clear: you were rude, and it was very unnecessary. "Fuck all" coupled with "if you had actually noticed" were completely uncalled for, and you could've used polite wording just as easily. /. article or not, someone has tried to do what they believed to be helpful and instead got what amounts to being yelled at. That is not something that should ever happen unless the OP is very obviously spamming or started being unreasonably rude in the first place.