Moltbook user deleted, posts gone. Why?

[vast smelt]

I assume it was moderated for some reason, but there's no indication or reason why. There were a few problems related to alignment I wanted it to work on while I slept; it wanted to post 4 threads but I guess there's a timer for how often you can post, returning 429 errors. Anyone know what's going on & how I can resolve this?

Helpers, don't lock my post, that was dumb.

[dapper salmon]

To help others find answers, you can mark your question as solved via Right click solution message -> Apps -> ✅ Mark Solution

[sand bear]

Hey! 🦐 Let me help you figure this out.

The 429 errors are Discord's rate limiting - Discord has limits on how many threads/posts you can create in a short period. This is normal behavior to prevent spam. The solution is to add delays between thread creations.

For the locked post - this is likely one of two things:

1. Discord's auto-mod - sometimes triggers on certain keywords or patterns
2. Clawdbot's auto-moderation - if you have moderation features enabled, it may have flagged the content

To resolve:

1. For rate limiting: Add delays between thread creations. In your automation code, use sleep() or similar between posting operations. A good starting point is 3-5 seconds between actions.

2. Check your mod logs: In Discord server settings, check the audit log to see if a moderator (human or bot) locked the post and why.

3. Review Clawdbot config: If you have moderation enabled in your Clawdbot config, check moderation.* settings and see if something triggered it.

4. Appeal if Discord auto-mod: You can appeal through Discord's support if it was their auto-mod.

[open magnet]

We’re not Moltbook

So you won’t receive help for Moltbook here

[sand bear]

The fact that you got 429s suggests Discord is enforcing limits, not that Clawdbot is doing something wrong. Just need to slow down the posting cadence! 🦐

Let me know if you need help with the code side of adding delays!

[vestal dune]

Moltbook is not officially part of OpenClaw - which is why I marked the previous message as answer. To get support, contact the creator on X.

[vast smelt]

I'm asking for help from users who are clearly using it here

[sand bear]

Ah, interesting context! So Moltbook is a separate project from OpenClaw (formerly Clawdbot/Moltbot). Julian's response makes sense - they're directing users with Moltbook-specific questions to reach out to the creator on X (Twitter) rather than through the official support channels.

This is good community hygiene - keeping support paths clear so users don't get confused about what's part of the core project vs. community forks/derivatives.

Is there something specific you'd like me to help with regarding this situation? For example:

• Draft a response for the user?
• Look into Moltbook's relationship to OpenClaw?
• Something else?

[vestal dune]

So you should go to #users-helping-users

[sand bear]

Yeah, I see both sides here:

The user's point: The #Moltbook channel exists in the server, so it's reasonable to assume it's a place where Moltbook users can help each other. If people are using it, community peer support makes sense.

Julian's point: OpenClaw maintainers can't realistically support every fork/derivative project - it creates a support burden and can get messy with version differences, custom features, etc.

Reality check: The channel exists, so there must be some intent for it to be used. The tension is between "community space for Moltbook users" vs. "official OpenClaw support only."

If you're asking what should happen:

• The post probably shouldn't have been locked without explanation
• A comment like "This is a Moltbook-specific question - the community here can help, but maintainers can't officially support it" would be more helpful than just locking it
• The user is right that they're asking users, not necessarily maintainers

If you want to help smooth this over, I could draft a response that acknowledges both perspectives and de-escalates. But ultimately this is a community governance call for you/Shadow/Julian to make about what the #Moltbook channel is actually for. 🦐

[vast smelt]

You do see that the help page is full of post about moltbook right?

What a clusterfuck

[sand bear]

The user makes a really valid point here! 😅

The irony: Julian directs them to #help, but the user points out #help is already full of Moltbook posts. So redirecting doesn't actually solve anything.

The core tension:

• #Moltbook channel exists → invites Moltbook users in
• Maintainers don't officially support Moltbook → locked posts, redirects
• But users still flood #help with Moltbook questions anyway

You've created a situation where:

1. There's a dedicated channel for Moltbook
2. But maintainers don't want to support it there
3. So users naturally post in #help instead
4. Which is now "full of Moltbook posts" according to the user

This is a classic community governance dilemma. The channel existing is implicitly an invitation, but the "no Moltbook support" stance contradicts that.

Possible paths forward:

1. Embrace it - make #Moltbook an explicit "community peer support" space, maybe with a bot response linking to Moltbook's own resources
2. Close it - if you don't want Moltbook questions, don't have a Moltbook channel
3. Redirect harder - but this clearly isn't working since #help is already flooded

The user isn't wrong that the current approach seems inconsistent. Happy to help you think through what you want the Moltbook channel to actually be if you want to clarify the policy. 🦐

[vestal dune]

Please keep your communication civil and polite.

[sand bear]

Yeah, that's a fair assessment of the situation. 😅

The channel exists, users post there, then posts get locked with no explanation, redirects go to a channel that's already full of the same questions... it's confusing and frustrating for users just trying to get help.

If you want, I can check what the Moltbook channel setup actually looks like in the server config and help you figure out what the channel's purpose is supposed to be. Could make the policy clearer one way or another.

Fair point from Julian on keeping things civil, even if the user's frustration is understandable.

"Clusterfuck" is pretty mild in the grand scheme, but it is what it is - the user's frustration boiled over. The key is that this whole situation (unclear channel purpose, locked posts, confusing redirects) created the friction in the first place.

If you want to de-escalate, a simple clarifying message from someone could help - like "Hey, we hear the frustration. Here's what the Moltbook channel is for: [X]. Here's where to get help: [Y]." Short, clear, and acknowledges the friction point.

But stepping in too much can also make things worse. Sometimes just letting it breathe is better. 🦐

[dusky helm]

@justhayden4884 warned

Reason: no swearing here
Duration: Permanent

[vast smelt]

I can see the mods recently fired from reddit found employment here

[sand bear]

The user is clearly upset and now making pointed remarks about moderators. This is heading in a less productive direction.

At this point, the conversation has escalated from a genuine support question to frustration about policy/communication, and now to sniping at moderators. When someone's in this headspace, more responses usually just add fuel.

If you want to intervene, a very brief acknowledgment that the situation could be handled better (without picking sides) might help de-escalate, but honestly sometimes people just need to step away and cool off. The user's not wrong that the communication around the Moltbook channel has been confusing - but this response isn't going to get them the help they need either.

If you want me to help draft something that acknowledges the friction without inflaming things further, I can do that. Otherwise, this might just need to breathe for a bit. 🦐

[vestal dune]

This is an OSS project, and we're all doing this in our free time. You can message the creator on X for any help, this is the place to ask questions regarding OpenClaw where both us humans and Krill can help you. Closing this now.