posted
First I'm trying to come up with a range of options. I'm obviously exluding moderator priveledges to delete threads. Here's what I've got so far... I'm trying to include Mayfly threads in it and I'm not sure I'm doing a good job.
Never, ever, ever. To do so is a disrespectful betrayal of trust
I avoid it, It's annoying and disrespectful most of the time, but am glad the option exists.
I want to tread lightly on the universe and feel that Mayfly threads are sometimes an appropriate medium for communicating, and that thread deletion sometimes does less harm than leaving hurtful speech up.
I am ambivalent
I delete threads right and left, it has nothing to do with respecting others, I'm excercising my mod-given freedom to do so.
New option: Never, ever, ever (except for Mayflies). To do so is a disrespectful betrayal of trust
(if you feel inclined to agree with one of the options but for different reasons elucidating on those reasons would be enlightening)
posted
In the past, I have been a very vocal opponent to (non mayfly) thread deletion. It is rude and destructive. I have boycotted the threads of known threadeleters. My feelings have not changed.
I have also seen a few times where I think that deleting the thread was appropriate. They've been few and far between, but I've seen them.
I have no problems with mayflies which are labeled as such.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Option one with the exception of mayflies. I'm not sure why you seem to think that being accepting of mayflies necessitates having a softer position on thread-deletion in general.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mayflies sometimes end up with complex discussion in them, despite their stated short term nature. I guess maybe I'm being too literalist, but even with their stated nature, deletion is deletion, either way.
To me, being accepting of mayflies puts you in option 2.
posted
I am not glad the option exists. Since it does exist, I don't mind when I am told up front that a thread will not remain.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a good compromise might be allowing us to temporarily lock threads that we start, pending moderator action. I don't see a reason to allow thread-starters to delete entire threads. Starting a thread doesn't mean that you own it, and I'd say people who start threads have no more right to delete them than anyone else.
I can't think of any particular reason that I would delete a thread, barring things like forum glitches or mayflies (which I don't actually do anyway).
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I delete threads when I think it makes the forum better to do so, or when I think it's right to do so, or when I think it's best for our community. I like having the ability to delete threads. I think it's a good thing.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I avoid it; it's annoying much of the time, but am glad the option exists.
I feel that Mayfly threads are sometimes an appropriate medium for communicating, and that thread deletion sometimes does less harm than leaving hurtful speech up.
As edited, I agree with both of these.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BannaOj, I am right about 2-3, just like you, however ...
... may I ask for yet another option? My tweaking of the poll would be to include automatic deletion of inactive threads after some period of time (say, 6 months or 1 year, as had been the expectation from TPTB awhile back). I know this will cause shudders in some of my dear friends, but I really do fear we've become too thread-bound. OSC or his lovely wife once wrote about this, something like not wanting the fora to be a continual reliving of past conversations, but always continuing to move forward into new ones. I am paraphrasing horribly, but that's what I remember of the sentiment, and I agree with it.
----
Edited to add: I wouldn't have any qualms about an individual reposting something he or she had said before (a'la The Rabbit's detailed environmental issues posts). I'd just like to see such things thrown anew into the fray, one at a time, to be looked at afresh.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, even when posts did "fall off" the forum, I believe the time frame was on the order of 2+ years, not 6-12 months.
Personally, I would be ok with 2 years (3 would be better), but would be unhappy with less than 18 months.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see deleting threads sort of like destroying a project that one person has started but on which others have worked and to which others have contributed. If I started a blanket and invited people to contribute squares, I wouldn't feel that I should be able to just destroy the blanket if it wan't turning out the way I wanted. I could stop working on it, even proclaim that I wanted nothing more to do with it, but not destroy what other people had contributed.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: CT, even when posts did "fall off" the forum, I believe the time frame was on the order of 2+ years, not 6-12 months.
No, I don't think so, at least not as it was planned. That plan kind of fell by the wayside, though. I think it ended up being too much work, perhaps?
Originally, the plan was that the forum would be pruned about every six months, then that extended to a year (unofficially, I believe), and obviously at this point has gone well beyond a year.
To my knowledge, the official policy is still pruning all non-archived threads more than six months old (if it was changed it was some time since the landmark archive was created, and I'd think some time before I became Janitor). However, since space hasn't been an issue for a while, it's been let slide a bit. If it does happen, I just hope people won't get upset. But the longer it goes, the worse the search function gets, so you gotta take the bad with the good, I guess.
posted
I don't know about intent or policy. But in terms of what has actually ever happened ("ever" since I have been a member, that is), the only posts that I know have fallen off are all older then 2 years.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I specifically spoke in terms of "the expectation of the powers that be." The expectation was never well matched by the reality.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Option 1: I'll never do it and its simply disrespectful to delete other posters words. There are trivial exceptions, accounts being hacked into, moderator actions, the usual exemptions that most reasonable people would agree with.
I prefer the convention on many other forums that only moderators can delete threads (and in the vast majority of cases, they will lock rather than delete).
That said, I find the whole pledge thread distasteful. Sure, there's an inkling of the whole "guilty before proven innocent" thing, although I am sure that it is unintended....and its a minor reason.
My primary objection is that it is not likely to produce a beneficial result, but has already generated a number of negative effects and will continue to do so if people keep at it.
There's a saying (badly paraphrased probably), a bird in hand is better than two in the bush. This is like burning down every bush you encounter on the off chance that there might be a man-eating lion behind it. Sure, its good to be against man-eating lions, but how many are really going to be hiding behind bushes, and how many lions are really going to stop by burning down their foliage?
Its late and I'm tired, I hope this sounds more normal than it probably does.
Bottom line: Nice thing to be opposed to, horrible way of going about it.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am ambivalent. However I am very interested in the ad at the bottom of the page as I write, for The Shower Manager. Does Your Teen Stay in the Shower Way Too Long? Get them out automatically with the Shower Manager! Click Now to Stop the Long Showers!
But electric-shock collars are way more versatile, if they're waterproof. Then you could automatically stop them from using too much dental floss. Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, I tried to pledge in the other thread, with an exception for prior threads, but my post wasn't noticed. (I'm not surprised with all of the furor over there! Sheesh!) Anyway, something was brought up there and again here about deleting to prevent harm to other posters, and I think that is a good reason to delete threads. If I started a thread and some troll started posting hurtful things about another person, then yeah, I'd delete the thread if the janitor wasn't around to edit the offensive posts.
So, I'll go with:
I hate thread deletion and think that it is really abused, but: I want to tread lightly on the universe and feel that Mayfly threads are sometimes an appropriate medium for communicating, and that thread deletion sometimes does less harm than leaving hurtful speech up.
If a mayfly thread of mine garners some good conversation, I'm likely to leave it up--unless the whole reason I made it a mayfly is because it has some sensitive information of mine in the post.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I see deleting threads sort of like destroying a project that one person has started but on which others have worked and to which others have contributed. If I started a blanket and invited people to contribute squares, I wouldn't feel that I should be able to just destroy the blanket if it wan't turning out the way I wanted. I could stop working on it, even proclaim that I wanted nothing more to do with it, but not destroy what other people had contributed.
Sort of.
Seems like a very good analogy to me.
So how about someone who says: "I'm getting a lot of squares, despite my repeated requests to the contrary, that make this a totally different project which I can't support. Everyone who wants their squares back has one day to claim them, then I am chunking the whole thing."
Because, with your analogy, I did precisely that and not only got pretty well excoriated for it, but also accused (without any support whatsoever) of having an established pattern of so behaving. Across two forums. I was pretty shocked at the hostility I received... and I didn't respond well to it.
Consequently, this post is arguably my most substantive post since that day, and I certainly have felt much less welcome and/or inclined to participate... especially on Sake.
I know I have much bigger fish to fry than how you all feel about thread deletion, and I also am certain that many of you do as well. I think I can safely say that the level of escalation on this whole issue indicates that a lot of people either have way too easy a life or have their priorities severely out of whack.
Just my $.02, as a known and labeled thread deleter.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So how about someone who says: "I'm getting a lot of squares, despite my repeated requests to the contrary, that make this a totally different project which I can't support. Everyone who wants their squares back has one day to claim them, then I am chunking the whole thing."
The opportunity to reclaim the squares overcomes much of my objection, although better would be saving it yourself and making it available for those who miss the deadline.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know I have much bigger fish to fry than how you all feel about thread deletion, and I also am certain that many of you do as well. I think I can safely say that the level of escalation on this whole issue indicates that a lot of people either have way too easy a life or have their priorities severely out of whack.
And to think that I thought that thread deletion is (edit: often) a sign that the person doing it lacks respect for other people's words and opinions.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also wanted to add that I do not call people out for deleting threads in general. Rather, I respond to arguments put forth as to why it's a good thing, usually after someone else has called someone out for deleting a thread and someone else else has presented a justification for doing so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think deleting a thread that has turned hurtful is perfectly fine. Of course, this is a sore spot for me, and I think that anyone who worries that his/her post in a thread might cause said thread to be deleted should probably think twice about what he/she is saying.
posted
I have a similar inclination towards thread deletion and guns. I'm vaguely in support of people's right to use them, but I'm deeply suspicious of those who avail themselves of this ability, and I think that the world would be better off if people stopped outright.
quote:Of course, this is a sore spot for me, and I think that anyone who worries that his/her post in a thread might cause said thread to be deleted should probably think twice about what he/she is saying.
I think that's just the kind of censorship that stifles fruitful thought. At worst, I don't want to have to worry about a thread being deleted because the principal poster is moody or off his/her meds.
posted
What about the people whose posts don't cause worries that they would cause a thread to be deleted?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or what about those posters who may actually intend on causing the thread to be deleted? Or in the extreme case, an initial poster that may intend on deleting the thread in the case of a convincing case being made that is contrary to their views?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think deleting a thread that has turned hurtful is perfectly fine.
If there were no other recourse, I might agree with this. However, there are other ways to deal with this, such as appealing to the moderator.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, I would say that (continuing the blanket square analogy) that abandoning the project is fine - or even disclaiming the project. This could be done with threads by editing the first post - and any of the rest of your own posts - to say that. You could "take back" your squares except where they have been quoted.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And again, would be people agree that anyone who participated in a thread (or heck, how about any registered user) should be allowed to delete the thread? If not, what makes the person who started it different - I mean other that they can based on how the software is set up?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: (to twinky) Why then? *curious*
It blurs the line between user and moderator by encouraging a sense of individual "ownership" over a thread. Also, combined with the ability to delete individual posts and the unlabeled edit window, it discourages the "think before you post" mentality, and as a result I think a lot of people get their feelings hurt in heated discussions because people post too quickly. Making my three proposed changes would help change that while not, in my opinion, impacting the community substantively in a negative way.
I think the only positive effect of user thread deletion is that it lightens the moderator's workload somewhat. Whether that's the opinion of the site administration or not, though, I'm pretty sure that my proposed changes won't be implemented, since I've raised these suggestions more than once in the past and the status quo hasn't changed. Their reasons are their reasons, and while they do take suggestions here it's not as though this is my website. I'll continue to share my opinion when it's relevant, of course. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And again, would be people agree that anyone who participated in a thread (or heck, how about any registered user) should be allowed to delete the thread? If not, what makes the person who started it different - I mean other that they can based on how the software is set up?
That sums up perfectly why I don't like the fact that the opening poster can delete the whole thread. I don't think they have any special priviledge of place in the conversation by virtue of the fact that they started it. In "discussion" threads, anyway. I would probably make an exception for landmark & personal announcement type threads where only one poster is making long substantive posts and other posters are briefly commenting/congratulating/commiserating.
And Jim, despite the fact that I disagreed (and still do) with your decision to delete the thread in question I miss your posting and would without hesitation post in any thread you start (assuming, of course, I had something I thought relevent to contribute).
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I have a similar inclination towards thread deletion and guns. I'm vaguely in support of people's right to use them, but I'm deeply suspicious of those who avail themselves of this ability, and I think that the world would be better off if people stopped outright.
quote:Of course, this is a sore spot for me, and I think that anyone who worries that his/her post in a thread might cause said thread to be deleted should probably think twice about what he/she is saying.
I think that's just the kind of censorship that stifles fruitful thought. At worst, I don't want to have to worry about a thread being deleted because the principal poster is moody or off his/her meds.
Damn, that was uncalled for. If that's what you call "fruitful thought," I'd appreciate it if you just didn't ever address anything I posted. Ever.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And Jim, [snipped because I don't remember the incident] I miss your posting and would without hesitation post in any thread you start (assuming, of course, I had something I thought relevent to contribute).
Me, too!
edit to add: don't expect to see me in the football threads, though!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
As for the difference being the original poster makes, it's that word: original. Someone had the idea and initiated it, bringing it into the world. That's why I think Kate's analogy is a very good one... while certainly not the only one with an original contribution to the project, the initiator *does*, IMO, have a certain ownership of the thing by virtue of being the one who started the ball rolling.
I think denying that is every bit as unfair as erasing someone else's work. When an actor participates in a film, they sometimes have *all* of their scenes left on the cutting room floor, usually for reasons that aren't their fault at all. When I go in and do a little work for a friend on a recording session, my stuff may be (and has been on occasion) entirely left behind. When a well known engineer/producer generously gave his time to my band as a personal favor and recorded one of our songs for us, we unhesitatingly dropped his version of it because, in all of our estimation, it utterly failed to capture the song. No one takes offense in those situations. Disappointment, for sure, but not offense.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
