~snip~
If mods are not too busy perhaps it's not a big deal to handle those old reports although I do remember hilarious mentioning a few times that a flood of low-value post reports interferes with the handling of more urgent ones.
I am all for deleting a post that is containing malware or risky contents even if it was the very
very old post but for plagiarism, or any other soft offense like shit post (my case technically it's was a sarcastic posts) and stuffs those are from five years back or even a year back - I will say keep them unhandled to discourage the reporters.
Sometime reporters finds this motivation that by reporting and increasing their good report number they may find some benefit in future like forum mod hence they keep looking for reasons to report a post where the post can be fit as genuine one in the topic. By the way, this is how I am thinking - the reality could be totally different and I could be very wrong.
A conspiracy is all this is. You're not going to be banned for having a handful of posts deleted and it's likely nobody has it in for you and is just reporting random old bumps or unsubstantial posts of yours. You have a few in the queue reported as unsubstantial so that's probably why.
Good to have your voice here bud and learning about the unhandled reports. May I know the reasons given for the posts, obviously if it's possible by the moderation rule. It's just a curiosity.
And what is your view about handling reported posts back from long ago except it has malware or harmful contents and risky for the users?
I can confirm. I have also been targeted this way heavily in the past, and banned as a result. Of course the reports I made were almost completely ignored. More recently this hasn't been an issue, but a very large percentage of my reports still stay permanently unhandled.
I think the blame goes to the reporter for taking such unethical advantages of reporting option. If mod can spot such actions then they can warn those users not to abuse it.