quote:

---

The thing is, I'm mortal and I make mistakes.

---

To me, the correct thing to do in this case is to own up to your mistakes, not to try to remove all evidence of them occuring.
 

---

Posted by aiua (Member # 7825) on :
 
I doubt there will ever be a need for it for myself, but I'll play along. It can't hurt.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Why is there no point to this or why a thread-deleter registry isn't really workable?
 

---

Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
 
I'll take the pledge. I hate thread-deletion.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Can we mark thread deleters with a red D next to their name? Shun the sinners, I say
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I should have put an "on purpose" caveat in my pledge. I don't think an accidental delete is likely, but I shouldn't underestimate my ability to push wrong buttons.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I don't see why not put up a list of suspected thread deleters.

As I said, deleting a thread is not usually going to be the best way to undo damage that posting a given thread has done. Though I can say from personal experience that any apologies one gives are likely to be covered over in a tidal wave of posts attacking one's sincerity.

Which I probably warranted at the time.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I pledge to delete things whenever it'd be funniest.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I think we all go through phases. I remember thinking dobies were the epitome of funny a few years ago and that people who complained about them were curmudgeonly.

I also used to like puns but everyone around here is so much better than me at it.

I guess tying this back to the subject at hand, there was a time I would have passionately supported this pledge, but not so much at the moment.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
I also used to like puns but everyone around here is so much better than me at it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aiua:
I doubt there will ever be a need for it for myself, but I'll play along. It can't hurt.

---

quote:

---

I think the mere idea of castigating thread deleters is laughably anti-funny.

---

quote:

---

It reminds me of the Gray People from the old Changeling games: people who take everything so seriously, including their own words, that they turn the world into a museum of ego.

---

You're free to assign whatever mistaken motives you wish to those not liking thread deletion.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I'm just curious to know what started this, or it's been something you've been mulling over for some time now and decided the climate was ripe.
 

---

Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
 
I'm glad I hit refresh before posting, because ricree just basically said what I wrote. I don't think I'll ever delete a thread, but I really can't make myself care that much if someone else does.

Although, if someone had deleted the really looooonnnggg Lost discussion w/ spoilers from Seasons 1 & 2 this year, I would have felt a tad bereft. I was catching up with the dvds and that thread was my vicarious conversation, since I couldn't participate in the Season 3 discussion.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
I think this is a great idea. Those who don't see the value in the pledge are free not to participate. Those who do can decide how much effort they're willing to put in to a discussion when it might be gone 10 minutes later.
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
I would rather not give up my right to delete a thread. I've never done it before and have no plan to do so...which I wanted to say...but I won't be pledging.

Cheers, though.
 

---

Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
Leave it to the lawyer to come up with something like this.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Oh, is it about this?

quote:

---

I know some people have a casual attitude about derailing threads. If someone does so twice, in a manner that makes it clear they have no interest in the actual topic I posted on or in returning the thread to its true purpose...then I am very likely to delete it.
-Puffy Treat Thread deletion and the ethics of aspiration

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Sure, but I really don't see the point.

---

Oh, look. Something Squick and I agree on!

This thread makes me feel like the HUAC is alive and well.

I also agree with mph.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Again, can we please discuss whether or not other people should delete threads somewhere else? MC summed up my intent perfectly:

quote:

---

Those who don't see the value in the pledge are free not to participate. Those who do can decide how much effort they're willing to put in to a discussion when it might be gone 10 minutes later.

---

 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I don't think this is so much about Puffy. Puffy, if you are reading this, don't feel bad.

I think that this is more a "safety clause" for people who "craft" posts - putting time and research into them - rather than just people who are having a casual conversation. Or for people who sometimes do that. It is helpful and, I think, an incentive for people to post thoughtful posts if they have some assurance that the posts won't wanish.

edit: or vanish for that matter.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
*puts rivka on the list*
 

---

Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
I didn't completely read this thread, so I'm not sure where others stand on the issue? But this is one of those times when the only reaction I can think of is:

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

And of course it's not literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard of? That's just what you say when you think something is so ridiculous it would be a complete waste of your time to come up with an argument against it?

What I'm hoping is that people realize, over time, how silly the idea of this is (my opinion - sorry) and that eventually they have the good sense to delete this thread.


 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Again, can we please discuss whether or not other people should delete threads somewhere else?

---

quote:

---

This thread makes me feel like the HUAC is alive and well.

---

quote:

---

If you have a problem with Puffy, you should address him rather than create some ex post facto declaration that he is not a member of your definition of civil society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon Boy:
*puts rivka on the list*

---

quote:

---

I don't happen to feel my analogy was over the top. This thread is designed to coerce people to comply with one side's view on a divisive issue.

---

quote:

---

IMO, that is many orders of magnitude more divisive than the issue itself.

---

Easy for someone to say who favors being able to delete threads.

Just because thread deletion is not divisive to you doesn't mean it's not divisive.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
What a great way to solve the problem, polarize the issue!

The pledge is garbage. A thread is not holy writ people. Your posts, no matter how researched, are not holy writ. It should be YOUR responsibility to safeguard your research, information, and effort put into your large posts. We are guests here. If you want you writings completely safeguarded, keep it on your own webspace or hard drive.

That being said, do I think deleting thread is bad form? Yes, absolutely, but it's not always bad form. It's sometimes necessary. Belle for sure has stated a good reason for deleting a thread, such as confidential information she didn't want shared.

Bottom line people, get a grip.
 

---

Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 

quote:

---

Easy for someone to say who favors being able to delete threads.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
No, it's not. It's specifically designed to create a VOLUNTARY compliance scheme.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Easy for someone to say who favors being able to delete threads.

Just because thread deletion is not divisive to you doesn't mean it's not divisive.

---

• That because I am in favor of posters having the ability to delete threads, that they should do so frequently or without warning.
• That I am not frequently very annoyed about thread that have been deleted.
• That I don't think thread deletion is as divisive as you do. I think I do; I just think this alternative is considerably worse.

quote:

---

Just because thread deletion is not divisive to you doesn't mean it's not divisive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick:
What a great way to solve the problem, polarize the issue!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
I refuse to join in. I think deleting can be (is not always, but can be) just fine, and as the mods have seen fit to allow the ability, I think they agree.

I do pledge to use, to the best of my ability, wisdom, judgement and discretion in my thread-deleting choices. As an adult, I trust myself to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
The mistrust has already been bred, Jon Boy.

---

quote:

---

Which is why I decided to go in the opposite direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus:
I hate it when people delete threads. When I come to perceive someone as a person who deletes threads, I no longer make thoughtful replies to their threads. I have never deleted a thread myself (that was ot marked as a mayfly).

That said, I will not be pledging. People will have to trust me based on my past behavior rather than on my stated pledge.

---

quote:

---

This is specifically not about Puffy. And, despite your repeated attempts to make it so, it is not about you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I think people deleting their threads that other peopel put a lot of thought and effort into is deleterious to the community.

---

quote:

---

You have got to be kidding. This whole thread is a joke, isn't it? It's a parody of something else? Or a social experiment? I'm being 100% serious here. I've suddenly realized that this whole idea is so over the top it cannot possibly be real. Someone email me and clue me in, I beg of you. I won't interfere, I just want to know what's really happening.

---

quote:

---

Shall we discuss peer pressure and group mentalities?

---

quote:

---

If it's not meant to be coercive, why include "Posters who have violated the pledge:"?

---

quote:

---

Do you really not see the potential for this to become a litmus test for posters?

---

quote:

---

The pledge is garbage. A thread is not holy writ people. Your posts, no matter how researched, are not holy writ. It should be YOUR responsibility to safeguard your research, information, and effort put into your large posts. We are guests here. If you want you writings completely safeguarded, keep it on your own webspace or hard drive.

---

quote:

---

I disagree, Dag, that this is what you did. I think any "pledge" -- assuming it has any effect at all, which I seriously doubt -- is destined to create a special category of posters who intend to treat each other as special, and thus relegate everyone else to hoi polloi.

The explicit function of such a pledge is to create a special class of posters. The implicit function, then, is to make all other posters less special.

---

quote:

---

Whether the pledge is "voluntary" or not is irrelevant, especially if it's meant to have any teeth; if, for example, certain people decide they will only post meaningful things in threads started by "anti-deletionists" or whatever, the "voluntary" nature of such a promise becomes questionable.

---

quote:

---

Well, it certainly can't be about you, or your stated agenda. I mean, that's what you're arguing, that a thread started shouldn't have any special ownership of a thread.

*Throws candy at the rabble*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
"Deleterious"

You're a riot, Ela.

---

It was unintentional, I assure you.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I believe "castigating" is the word of the day.

I was trying to think of a stronger one a few minutes ago. I believe "excoriate" is the ticket.
 

---

Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
I think there's only one way to correct this controversy: delete the thread. Then we can all pretend it didn't happen!
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

That being said, if I thought that this pledge had any chance of affecting anything, I'd be against it in much the same way that I'd be against a "I pledge not to break into your house and steal things when you are asleep." sort of situation.

---

quote:

---

I feel that creating a list of so-called "pledge-breakers" will be deleterious to the community.
...
I think people deleting their threads that other people put a lot of thought and effort into is deleterious to the community.

---

Yes. Precisely. They're both deleterious. And since the first doesn't prevent the second, all we're doing is increasing the deleteriousness.
 

---

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primal Curve:
I think there's only one way to correct this controversy: delete the thread. Then we can all pretend it didn't happen!

---

And...Primal wins the thread.
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 

quote:

---

Moreover, the fact that this might actually discourage thread deletion is not a negative to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

I feel that creating a list of so-called "pledge-breakers" will be deleterious to the community.
...
I think people deleting their threads that other people put a lot of thought and effort into is deleterious to the community.

---

Yes. Precisely. They're both deleterious. And since the first doesn't prevent the second, all we're doing is increasing the deleteriousness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
I don't think there's a lot of peer pressure involved here.

I mean, come on-- you people aren't even REAL. There's NO WAY you can give me a wedgie.

---

And you think I'm a riot.
 

---

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
Can we do the same thing with "on accident?"

*shudder*
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The pledge is designed primarily to provide information - the names of people voluntarily agreeing to not exercise a power they currently have to delete certain threads.

By the way, peer pressure is obviously not a big factor here.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

Not as deleterious as creating a list of "outcasts" - which is what a list of pledge-breakers would essentially do.

---

quote:

---

Simply, I don't think pledges in general (especially ones extracted by peer pressure) work.

---

That's because people who are susceptible to peer pressure sometimes come into contact with different peers.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
What the heck, I accept the pledge.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

However, this is also why I didn't, in general, mind Irami's selfish attempt to talk about a different Richard Taylor. Pragmatically, I don't care about unmakings when they are ineffectual.

---

quote:

---

Not as deleterious as creating a list of "outcasts" - which is what a list of pledge-breakers would essentially do.

---

quote:

---

We have threads every now and then about how even though the whistle exists, only a member of the SS would use it.

---

quote:

---

So let's see, my idea is garbage, akin to McCarthyism, an unmaking, deleterious to the community, and a coercive attempt to exert peer pressure.

---

quote:

---

Irregardless of thread deletion aspect, this reminds me of the chastity pledges I've heard about. I've also heard about their complete failure to lower the incidence of sexual activity among teenagers. Simply, I don't think pledges in general (especially ones extracted by peer pressure) work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
I hope that the thread will change behavior. That's not coercive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Do you really think people should not have access to the knowledge concerning whether a thread starter will delete their words?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
My intent is to use this as a reference for people about whom I have not formed an opinion regarding their likelihood of thread deletion and to rely on my already-formed opinions when there is no entry in this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Whether the pledge is "voluntary" or not is irrelevant, especially if it's meant to have any teeth; if, for example, certain people decide they will only post meaningful things in threads started by "anti-deletionists" or whatever, the "voluntary" nature of such a promise becomes questionable.

---

It doesn't seem irrelevant to those who are accusing me of coercion. To them, it seems highly relevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strider:
I hate the word "irregardless". I hate that it's becoming acceptable to use. And I hate that my spell check didn't underline it when I typed it out. I hate everything about it and would like to start a petition to wipe it out of the English language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Not as deleterious as creating a list of "outcasts" - which is what a list of pledge-breakers would essentially do.

---

There seems to be some confusion on this point. We're not tracking people who delete threads who haven't taken the pledge. The list of people will be small or nil.

The list of thread deleters in general, which will not be kept in this thread, is much longer and they have a significantly deleterious effect on the forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

Irregardless of thread deletion aspect, this reminds me of the chastity pledges I've heard about. I've also heard about their complete failure to lower the incidence of sexual activity among teenagers. Simply, I don't think pledges in general (especially ones extracted by peer pressure) work.

---

I think that those pledges would work better if all sexual activity were public, just like the pledge.

---

I never knew you had a voyeuristic streak.
 

---

Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

Irregardless of thread deletion aspect, this reminds me of the chastity pledges I've heard about. I've also heard about their complete failure to lower the incidence of sexual activity among teenagers. Simply, I don't think pledges in general (especially ones extracted by peer pressure) work.

---

I think that those pledges would work better if all sexual activity were public, just like the pledge.

---

quote:

---

Gee, several people have presented the intent of the thread. Rather than address that, you're just using fake incredulity to mock an idea that you haven't formulated an actual response to.

---

quote:

---

In the form of a list? No, I don't.

---

quote:

---

Almost by definition.

---

Wanting to change behavior is coercive?

So are you being coercive to me?

quote:

---

Whether it's small or not is not the issue. If there is even one person on the list, it will have the negative effect of holding one person up as an example of something "bad."

---

quote:

---

So let's see, my idea is garbage, akin to McCarthyism, an unmaking, deleterious to the community, and a coercive attempt to exert peer pressure.

---

quote:

---

If there is even one person on the list, it will have the negative effect of holding one person up as an example of something "bad."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharpie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I think that those pledges would work better if all sexual activity were public, just like the pledge.

---

Ack, I think that's illegal, man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
What the heck, I accept the pledge.

---

quote:

---

In the form of a list? No, I don't. In the form of acquired experience? Sure.

---

quote:

---

Particularly when you actually dare to respond to people who don't take your proposed pledge with: "Easy for someone to say who favors being able to delete threads." I simply cannot believe that I'm seeing this posed on hatrack in any serious way. It deserves nothing but incredulity.

I can't believe that good hatrackers are in the position of having to say "I don't agree with thread deletion but I won't take the pledge because X." The very idea that we now have to clarify that we're against it, just so it's understood, is just awesomely silly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TL:
I can't believe that good hatrackers are in the position of having to say "I don't agree with thread deletion but I won't take the pledge because X." The very idea that we now have to clarify that we're against it, just so it's understood, is just awesomely silly.

---

quote:

---

I think I enjoy the drama that is stirred up by deletions, etc too much to support changing the forum mechanics, or a pledge; though a pledge does lend to the possibility of a double cross!

I've always sort of seen Hatrack as the Continental Congress hashing things out. I enjoy unpredictability and utter freedom.

But I am also not at all offended by Dagonee's thread, nor any recent thread deletions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

Irregardless of thread deletion aspect, this reminds me of the chastity pledges I've heard about. I've also heard about their complete failure to lower the incidence of sexual activity among teenagers. Simply, I don't think pledges in general (especially ones extracted by peer pressure) work.

---

I think that those pledges would work better if all sexual activity were public, just like the pledge.

---

I never knew you had a voyeuristic streak.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

IMO, that is many orders of magnitude more divisive than the issue itself.

---

Easy for someone to say who favors being able to delete threads.

Just because thread deletion is not divisive to you doesn't mean it's not divisive.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharpie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I think that those pledges would work better if all sexual activity were public, just like the pledge.

---

Ack, I think that's illegal, man.

---

I think there is a miscommunication here. My interpretation is that mph meant "better" in the "more effective at reaching their goal of increasing abstinence" sense rather than the "that is what they should do, because it would lead to desirable outcomes all around" sense.

I could be wrong though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
Do you really not see the potential for this to become a litmus test for posters?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharpie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I think that those pledges would work better if all sexual activity were public, just like the pledge.

---

Ack, I think that's illegal, man.

---

I think there is a miscommunication here. My interpretation is that mph meant "better" in the "more effective at reaching their goal of increasing abstinence" sense rather than the "that is what they should do, because it would lead to desirable outcomes all around" sense.

I could be wrong though.

---

I thought it was a joke. *adjusts Mucus' humorometer*

---

It was.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uprooted:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TL:
I can't believe that good hatrackers are in the position of having to say "I don't agree with thread deletion but I won't take the pledge because X." The very idea that we now have to clarify that we're against it, just so it's understood, is just awesomely silly.

---

Whoa. I was one of the people who posted something like that, but I certainly never felt that I had to post it. I don't feel the least bit threatened by Dag's pledge list, and I don't think he ever intended that I should. If he or anyone else wants to take my lack of pledging as an indication that I'm somehow untrustworthy and that they shouldn't put effort into posting in my threads because of that, then fine. (Although they'd be more likely to come to that conclusion because most of the threads I start are fluff; I generally do come here to have fun.)

---

Ditto that.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
See, my humorometer's working today! For once!
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Yo, Porter, I know you don't, I was joking.
 

---

Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 

quote:

---

I wasn't assuming that based on Rivka's hostility to the pledge, which is what you seem to be pissy about. I was restating an opinion rivka ACTUALLY STATED. You're account is grossly inaccurate and close to being a lie.

---

quote:

---

In other words, I was not "respond[ing] to [a person] who do[es]n't take [my] proposed pledge" but to someone who was justifying her comparison of me to McCarthy. A totally different thing, a totally different concept, and your attempt to twist is as you did was dishonest.

---

quote:

---

No, my friend, it wasn't dishonest. You were responding to someone who didn't take your proposed pledge. (Did she take your pledge?) And by responding in the way you did, you sort of proved her point.

---

No she didn't take my pledge. But my response was not in response to her not taking the pledge.

A brief, cursory reeaxmination of the thread will show you where you are wrong in this regard. Your unwillingness to do this is further proof of your lack of any semblance of good faith here.

Let's be very clear. I did not say "Easy for someone to say who favors being able to delete threads" as a response to a refusal to say the pledge.

Her point was that this list was more divisive than thread deleting. My point was that she was seriously underestimating the divisiveness of thread deleting.

It has nothing to do with the tortured dishonest point you attempted to make.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
As someday it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list,
I've got a little list!

Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed,
Who never would be missed...


 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Sign me up. I wanna let my freak flag fly!



-Bok
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I believe I have updated everyone who has requested to be on the list through Bokonon. If I missed you, please let me know.
 

---

Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 

quote:

---

No she didn't take my pledge. But my response was not in response to her not taking the pledge.

A brief, cursory reeaxmination of the thread will show you where you are wrong in this regard. Your unwillingness to do this is further proof of your lack of any semblance of good faith here.

Let's be very clear. I did not say "Easy for someone to say who favors being able to delete threads" as a response to a refusal to say the pledge.

Her point was that this list was more divisive than thread deleting. My point was that she was seriously underestimating the divisiveness of thread deleting.

It has nothing to do with the tortured dishonest point you attempted to make.

---

Just repeating that I'm lying doesn't make it so. I think a cursory re-examination of the exchange in question will show you that, in order to continually call me a liar, requires the application of motive, interpretation, and re-interpretation.

Knowing that I'm not a liar requires only the application of a literal reading.


 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I said I'd take it, but it was sort of ambiguous. My first post started with "Sure" which was to the pledge idea.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Interestingly, I'm okay with a self-subscribed list of "people who say their feelings are hurt by thread deletion." The message is completely different.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

in order to continually call me a liar, requires the application of motive, interpretation, and re-interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Interestingly, I'm okay with a self-subscribed list of "people who say their feelings are hurt by thread deletion." The message is completely different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:
Yo, Porter, I know you don't, I was joking.

---

I knew that, but I still felt the need to clarify.
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
Dags, stating your intrepretation of someone else's motives as correct is really dangerous territory. Especially when it contradicts their own stated motivations, it isn't respectful.
 

---

Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
You can sign me up, though I'm also in the group of "starts so few threads it probably doesn't matter."

I'm kinda surprised by the uproar here, but given the other things Hatrack's had uproars over I probably shouldn't be.
Dag, do you think it would still work if instead of listing people who took the pledge and broke it, you just removed them from the first list if they break the pledge (thus not differentiating between someone who broke the pledge and someone who never agreed in the first place)? I don't care, myself, but I wonder if that might reduce some of the objections.

--Enigmatic
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Here's what you originally said:

quote:

---

No, the incredulity is real, I assure you. And, by the way, is my actual response. I can't believe that you, in creating lists of posters who are willing to pledge, and of posters who violate that pledge, can't see the plainly obvious witch-hunt mentality of what you're doing. Particularly when you actually dare to respond to people who don't take your proposed pledge with: "Easy for someone to say who favors being able to delete threads." I simply cannot believe that I'm seeing this posed on hatrack in any serious way. It deserves nothing but incredulity.

I can't believe that good hatrackers are in the position of having to say "I don't agree with thread deletion but I won't take the pledge because X." The very idea that we now have to clarify that we're against it, just so it's understood, is just awesomely silly.

---

quote:

---

Dags, stating your intrepretation of someone else's motives as correct is really dangerous territory. Especially when it contradicts their own stated motivations, it isn't respectful.

---

I eagerly await your pointing this out to all the people who have done that to me in this thread.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Enigmatic, I thought about making that suggestion as well, actually. Something about fools and seldom differing, maybe?

(Edited to clarify to whom I was addressing the post.)
 

---

Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
 
Seven years, probably 3,000 or so posts, maybe 50 threads. I think I've deleted one post (when Feyd was right at 1,000 posts). I don't like seeing threads deleted, and I very much doubt I'll ever delete one (though the fallout is interesting, if not entertaining).

That said, I can't foresee all possibilities, and within the forum rules deleting a thread is allowed, even if it's frowned upon by the community. I will not be taking the Pledge.
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
People who think this thread is silly:
Xavier
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
I'll take the pledge if I can apply it only to posts I start from this day on. If a revocation can't be retroactive, I think it makes sense for the pledge not to be either.

I think agreeing to such a pledge will make one a little more self-censoring--although google's memory should be doing that anyway.
 

---

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xavier:
People who think this thread is silly:
Xavier

---

You can add me to that list, Xavier.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
People who think those who don't want to participate could just not participate:
Dagonee
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Dag, seriously, what's the practical value to you of such a list? How will you post differently if a thread-starter isn't on it?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Seriously, Tom, I've answered this repeatedly.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
It would be of practical value to me. I have a hard time keeping people straight. Sometimes I remember if they are likely to delete threads; most times I have no idea. On the off chance, I ever have an idea worth posting (and I remain optimistic despite evidence), the list is helpful to me.
 

---

Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 

quote:

---

The response "Easy for someone to say who favors being able to delete threads" was cited as a justification for calling this a witch hunt mentality - a mentality you sum up quite nicely in the last sentence "The very idea that we now have to clarify that we're against it, just so it's understood, is just awesomely silly."

What I said to rivka had NOTHING AT ALL to do with clarifying whether people were for or against thread deletion. I know rivka's position on it - she favors allowing it. She has explicitly said this.

What I said to rivka was not about the topic you used it to support. It's the post as a whole that is dishonest, not merely one sentence. And the dishonest part is using my response to rivka to justify your witch hunt accusation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
It would be of practical value to me. I have a hard time keeping people straight. Sometimes I remember if they are likely to delete threads; most times I have no idea. On the off chance, I ever have an idea worth posting (and I remain optimistic despite evidence), the list is helpful to me.

---

quote:

---

I eagerly await your pointing this out to all the people who have done that to me in this thread.

---

quote:

---

I ever have an idea worth posting

---

quote:

---

In my opinion, when you put the idea of pledges and lists together with the mindset that would actually say to someone "Easy for someone to say who favors being able to delete threads" -- you have a witch-hunt kind of mentality on your hands.

---

quote:

---

You have a mentality of dismissing the views of those who don't participate in your club, or share your viewpoint, as being automatically wrong -- or unworthy of real consideration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
People who think those who don't want to participate could just not participate:
Dagonee

---

quote:

---

What you have not explicitly said, Dag, is whether you would intend to boycott serious posts on non-signers' threads.

---

quote:

---

If that IS your intention, I don't see how you can reasonably claim that such a list is non-coercive.

---

quote:

---

I'm not going to outline all the factors I will use nor my possible responses because I don't know what they are.

---

If you hadn't already said today that you frequently edited your posts to remove the funny, I would think you were deliberately parodying Bush's Justice Department.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I suppose you prefer people who make decisions without thinking them through.
 

---

Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 

quote:

---

I've explained multiple times now how I didn't do that. The mindset was connected to a specific accusation, and not to the lists. I've repeated this over and over and now despair of your understanding it.

---

quote:

---

The irony is that my response was an attempt to get someone to stop dismissing my views. Repeatedly today, I have had the importance of trusting people not to destroy my posts diminished, as it was by rivka's post to which I responded.

---

quote:

---

I suppose you prefer people who make decisions without thinking them through.

---

It shouldn't surprise you that I don't think that this is the only alternative to legalism.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I'll be honest -- perhaps I really don't understand. Is this thread not for the purpose of making lists? And did you not say to someone the sentence which we have been quoting? What do you mean when you say "I didn't do that?" exactly. Have I accused you of doing something else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

I suppose you prefer people who make decisions without thinking them through.

---

It shouldn't surprise you that I don't think that this is the only alternative to legalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TL:
I've never ignored it. I've now clarified this multiple times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ela:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
It would be of practical value to me. I have a hard time keeping people straight. Sometimes I remember if they are likely to delete threads; most times I have no idea. On the off chance, I ever have an idea worth posting (and I remain optimistic despite evidence), the list is helpful to me.

---

All the list is going to tell you is the names of people who "signed" the pledge. It doesn't tell you anything about people who decided not to "sign" the pledge - you can't tell from this list that non-signers are more or less likely to delete threads. All you can tell is that they opted not to sign.

---

quote:

---

You've given no real response to it other than to insist on removing context from the discussion.

Until you explain why you don't think the context matters, I'm done with you.

---

Well of course I have, I have. In terms of being done with me....

I'm not sure how upset to be about someone who has dealt in repeated bad faith with me in this thread, mischaracterized my posts, called me a liar, and applied false motivations to me in spite of repeated clarifications being "done with me." Not very, in this case.

But of course, even though we haven't agreed here, I like your contributions to hatrack and look forward to future (hopefully better) discussions with you in the future.

I just think this whole idea was terribly, terribly bad.

Cheers.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

It doesn't surprise me that you equate precision with legalism, either.

---

quote:

---

Well of course I have

---

quote:

---

Another example: "Dag, would you boycott people who were not on the list?"

Legalistic reply: "I have explicitly said that I will take whether someone has signed into account in deciding how to post in their threads. I have also said that I will use other information to make that decision with respect to people who haven't signed. I'm not going to outline all the factors I will use nor my possible responses because I don't know what they are."

Precise reply: "Yes, depending. There are a lot of factors, but that's certainly a possibility."

The former is the language not MERELY of precision but also of emotional evasion; it makes it possible to disconnect from the emotional reality of what you're proposing.

---

quote:

---

What you're saying boils down to the fact that you want to maintain a list of people who you'd trust enough to post for, and you want other people to sign on and use the same list for the same purpose.

---

quote:

---

And the only reason you don't think that's insidious, Dag, is that I think your mind has worded it your way and not my way.

---

quote:

---

More importantly, the latter statement is quite simply not precise.

---

quote:

---

No, that "boiling down" removes a host of factors and specific nuances I took into account when I decided that to post my idea.

---

quote:

---

Isn't it? How does it differ in any particulars from the previous statement? What potential factors and appropriate responses are left out of the second that would be identified by the first?

---

quote:

---

Like...?

---

quote:

---

Is there a specific nuance, for example, that mitigates the steaming disaster that is this idea? If there IS such a honkin' huge "nuance," why wouldn't you mention it? It's not that I doubt you; I believe there is one. But I personally cannot imagine a "nuance" of a list like this -- above and beyond its obvious, explicit purpose -- less divisive than that explicit purpose; all the nuances I can come up with are actually worse.

---

Gee, Tom, what's the incentive here for me to answer? When I add nuance, I'm emotionally shielding myself. You've already dismissed - for some reason you haven't really explained - my whole concept of this as an information source to be used in making a decision.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Are you ok with people using this information source as a shortcut to make an emotional decision rather than a reasoned one?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I don't want to get into the particulars of how people use the information. It's useful information.

Thread deletion is something that a significant number of people strongly dislike. It's something that a significant number of people take into account when making decisions about how to post.

I think people have a right to take that into account if they want to. And there's nothing wrong with providing more accurate information about a set of people who are publicly stating that they will not delete threads.
 

---

Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
 
I have been a victim of thread deletion. There was a time, early on in my Hatrack career, when I thought it was O.K. to do it. I now know it is rude. With the exception of mayflies and duplicate topics, I do not advocate it. I agree to join the registry with some exceptions:

a) A thread of mine may be deleted if stated in the title that it is indeed, a mayfly.
b) A thread may be deleted if it is a duplicate (this may be due to a lag in the system or overanxious reply button clicking).

I do promise to resist the temptation to delete a thread because my feelings got hurt, either because hardly anyone posted in it, or because someone said something I didn't like. I know that may be difficult for some of us but I'd like to think we could all promise that last part.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Oh weird. I swear I've read some of the lines/discussion/argument on this thread before but looking at the dates, I can't have.

Time warp!

I don't mind thread deletion. I understand when I post in a thread that its existence is purely at the discretion of the creator and that any evolution into something the creator no longer desires may result in the deletion of mine and any other comments contained therein.

I'm a thread creationist .

I might suggest that a person who deletes a thread simply because he or she is hearing something he or she doesn't want to hear is acting in a cowardly manner, but it's their "right" as laid down in the rules of this forum, to exercise deletion. In metaphorical terms, I may not agree with the deserters, but I don't want to shoot them because I understand that I may someday want to be in a position where I want to desert- to undo something- myself. I understand the shame or annoyance or fear or whatever that makes people want to hide what they have written or said, and any discussion that emanated from it.

However, at the same time, I'm mostly perfectly fine with people signing a 'pledge' not to delete threads, as long as they don't come and dance on the graves of those who do not share their point of view.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't want to get into the particulars of how people use the information. It's useful information.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
I don't want to get into the particulars of how people use the information. It's useful information.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strider:
I hate the word "irregardless". I hate that it's becoming acceptable to use. And I hate that my spell check didn't underline it when I typed it out. I hate everything about it and would like to start a petition to wipe it out of the English language.

just sayin.

---

quote:

---

So you refuse to take any responsibility that this thread, which you started, may be used to harm others?

---

quote:

---

On the one hand, I think this is a horrible idea that smacks of vigilantism and self-righteousness.

---

quote:

---

Well Dagonee did state that he wasn't going to populate the "thread deleters" part of the list, so I think that point is moot, other than that the idea was there at the beginning.

---

quote:

---

This thread provides a mechanism to track people who have promised not to engage in bad behavior, rather then who do not like bad behavior.

---

quote:

---

Exactly. The former mimics a police state

---

quote:

---

and displays a distrust of the community, and the latter is a positive statement of preferences that shows respect for the community at large and doesn't try to sanctify a particular group's pet peeves.

---

quote:

---

Dag: I know you hate that posters have the ability to delete threads, but we do. I plan on using my judgment and discretion to exercise that ability with wisdom. You clearly would prefer to NOT leave that in my hands, but thankfully, the decision is not up to you.

---

quote:

---

More correctly, it tracks people who have promised not to engage in specific behavior.

---

quote:

---

Is that what the list really is? A list of people who do not trust the posters on Hatrack?

---

quote:

---

I think deleting other people's words from a medium, without their permission, in a format where they have a reasonable expectation that their words will not be deleted within a certain time frame, is bad behavior.

---

quote:

---

Dag, I think the problem here is that you're missing nuance with me. I don't randomly delete all threads and I don't think all thread deletion is okay. I think specific cases can be and that should be assessed on a individual basis. I've even laid out some of the circumstances in which it could be okay and some of the circumstances where I don't think it is.

---

quote:

---

If you skip all of that and choose to see this as black and white, then you're missing truth and nuance. That's unfortunate for you.

That you would prefer to take away some of my freedoms is not exactly countering the suggestions of a police state here.

---

quote:

---

Is this the crux? Considering we have been given the ability to delete threads, I don't believe that expectation is reasonable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
What I do see is that this community is often quite worthy of distrust, as many members think it is ok to delete threads, and this belief is viewed as an acceptable one by other members of the community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
. . . rivka's post to which I responded.

Her specific claim was that X is more divisive than Y.

It is absolutely meaningful to respond to such a claim by pointing out that the person making it doesn't think Y is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka (top of p.2):
You are making several incorrect assumptions:

• That because I am in favor of posters having the ability to delete threads, that they should do so frequently or without warning.
• That I am not frequently very annoyed about thread that have been deleted.
• That I don't think thread deletion is as divisive as you do. I think I do; I just think this alternative is considerably worse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

So you refuse to take any responsibility that this thread, which you started, may be used to harm others?

---

Much like those who delete threads don't seem to want to take responsibility for the harm they cause, to the extent that they oppose other people promising not to do it.

In reality, of course, your question begs the question as to what harm this thread will cause. People already boycott threads of people they believe likely to delete long posts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Well Dagonee did state that he wasn't going to populate the "thread deleters" part of the list, so I think that point is moot, other than that the idea was there at the beginning.

---

Assuming I continue this endeavor, I am going to populate that list with people who take the pledge and then delete a thread. I have never once stated that I would list people who do not take the pledge, whether they delete threads or not.

---

So you'll only call out the hypocrites who signed the pledge and then violated it? The problem is that there are people like me who are pretty vehemently anti-thread deletion, but have been burned by the never-say-never principle.

If I agree to your pledge, and suddenly find myself in one of those extreme circumstances where I think thread deletion *can* be justified, and I do it, then I become a hypocrite and end up on your "liars" list.

I guess that's why the whole pledge and list thing bothers me to begin with.

Edit: Architraz, I posted before I saw your post, and I think your post was more eloquent than my own.

[ August 09, 2007, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
If I didn't think it was reasonable*, I would be very hesitant to bother posting long, substantial posts that require significant time and effort.

Dag quite often posts these kinds of posts.

For less substantial posts, it doesn't really matter. Or at least, less.

Dag has provided information about where, if it isn't generally a reasonable expectation, it is "safe" in threads started by people who agree to that expectation.

*The expectation that my words wouldn't be "disappeared."

edit to add the clarification - several posts appeared in between.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
The former mimics a police state and displays a distrust of the community...

---

quote:

---

You are making several incorrect assumptions:

* That because I am in favor of posters having the ability to delete threads, that they should do so frequently or without warning.
* That I am not frequently very annoyed about thread that have been deleted.
* That I don't think thread deletion is as divisive as you do. I think I do; I just think this alternative is considerably worse.

---

quote:

---

Yes but this thread could be used spitefully with a snarky "Oh he's a known thread deleter" comment and a link back to this thread. I think this thread could be used in spite and that doing so is Unmaking. No you aren't responsible for the spiteful, unmaking people. But acknowleding that this could be used out of spite to create divsiveness would be a start.

---

quote:

---

Now that I've typed this, I've realized that perhaps you were just too pure minded in your motive of starting it and the rammifications of spiteful people missusing this list as a weapon didn't even cross your mind when you started this thread.

---

quote:

---

So you'll only call out the hypocrites who signed the pledge and then violated it? The problem is that there are people like me who are pretty vehemently anti-thread deletion, but have been burned by the never-say-never principle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
As to the third, I don't believe that you understand how divisive I find it to be. You "hope that ability will not be taken away."

---

quote:

---

As I have repeatedly said, I am going to judge those who don't sign as I already do. The problem is that there are many people - not Icarus, MPH, you, and many others - who I have no information concerning this issue. I have often not posted things because I fear deletion when the thread has been posted by an unknown person. That won't change; this thread creates an opportunity to gain information more quickly.

---

I appreciate your personal statement of non-judgment.

I realize hindsight is 20-20. However perhaps a poll asking people for their opinions on thread deletion would have accomplished your informational goal, more quickly in a less divisive manner, than a "pledge"?

(in fact I'm off to start that thread... )

[ August 09, 2007, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
 
I will sign, and from the fifth page, I get to be on the first.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
As to the third, I don't believe that you understand how divisive I find it to be. You "hope that ability will not be taken away."

---

quote:

---

I guess the issue I'm having with the idea of keeping a list is that it is a public and persistent list. There is no possibility of forgive and forget, letting bygones be bygones, or any such cliches.

---

quote:

---

I don't believe you understand how divisive some of us find this pledge.

---

quote:

---

In fact, absent my idea, there is no reliable way for a former thread deleter to regain trust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
No, you weren't wrong. That's a pretty clear exception.

---

There are no exceptions. Not even for the health of the forum.
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
Like I said...if it needs to be deleted for the health of the forum, let the moderator make that decision. Or let thread-starters lock threads temporarily. Or force a 24 waiting period with the thread marked so people can save things or complete the discussion they were having.

I think it's pretty clear that the way things are right now isn't working to the satisfaction of pretty much everyone. Most of us don't like deleting threads, so why exactly is everyone so angry?

It's not even about not trusting people to do the right thing. Some people might not even realize the impact that deleting a thread has, and do so without knowledge of how it might hurt people -- and regret it later. Heck, why not put up a warning message when someone goes to delete the first post in the thread that deleting threads is generally frowned upon by the community? If we're going to allow something that makes most people mad, shouldn't we at least warn those who do it that there will be a backlash?
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I'm specifically pledging to delete any thread I feel like deleting, as well as editing any post I want to edit. So I'm putting everyone on notice of that fact. Far from thinking this is a bad thing, I think it's great. Like all powers, it can be used for good or for ill. I like to think I know how to use it for good. I pledge to do that, if that makes anyone feel better.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shigosei:
I think it's pretty clear that the way things are right now isn't working to the satisfaction of pretty much everyone.

---

quote:

---

This thread seems akin to schoolyard banter, as if you're a little boy drawing a line in the sand saying, "This is the cool side of the line, all the cool people(people against thread deletion) on this side, everybody else stay over there! *blows raspberry*"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
No, you weren't wrong. That's a pretty clear exception.

---

There are no exceptions. Not even for the health of the forum.

---

quote:

---

I hereby agree not to delete threads on Hatrack River to which others have responded

---

quote:

---

It may also be the tone of the pledge. Rather than saying "never X" in the negative, to me it is is more profitable to have a positive request for respectful discussion and what respectful considerate discussion entails. To say "never X" does imply harsh judgement against those who do X (unless we read your further personal non-judgement disclaimers and waivers) But those disclaimers and waivers to mitigate possible divisiveness were not in your original pledge.

---

quote:

---

Once someone has acted in bad faith, a pledge is only an attempt to put a superficial bandaid on the situation and is in no way reliable.

---

quote:

---

Finger-pointing back to this thread could be come a source of nyah, nyah holier-than-thou snobbery quite easily. It could also be used for scorn and ridicule, of people who are ok with judicious thread deletion like CT, on "do no harm" grounds.

---

quote:

---

There are other people who are *not* ok with having their words recorded for posterity that delete posts with far more frequency than Javert Hugo or CT. And they would suffer far more personal distress by having their words remain (even if it is on a knitting thread) than quitely deleting their own posts, although they probably wouldn't delete a thread because they rarely start them. But even when they have something valuable to say, they wouldn't ever start a thread if they didn't have the option to delete it if they felt they drew too much attention to themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

I guess the issue I'm having with the idea of keeping a list is that it is a public and persistent list. There is no possibility of forgive and forget, letting bygones be bygones, or any such cliches.

---

Sure there is. In fact, absent my idea, there is no reliable way for a former thread deleter to regain trust. In contrast, if anyone who has deleted threads takes this pledge, I will treat them as if they will not delete threads.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
CT has been very up front about her desire to delete threads. I have taken this into account in the way I respond to her threads. I don't consider that divisive on either of our parts.

---

(As a quite tangential point of clarification, I don't actively desire to delete threads. I do actively desire to avoid hurting or upsetting my friends, and in the remote chance I would delete again, I want to avoid having misled people.

I can't guarantee that I wouldn't delete a thread again -- I don't expect to, but I recall a thread in which someone posted very personal information about someone else (hmmm, the poster was from a different forum, I think, and it was one of Belle's (?)) threads), and that one I would have deleted without qualm if PJ weren't immediately available.

I also would have deleted the thread about "what is porn?" (or something like) -- as I noted clearly in the title and in the first post -- were PJ not immediately available and if someone had linked to an explicit site not fit for minors, for example. I didn't realize until recently how hard this is on some people, but I still want (regretfully) to retain the power (if offered) to make that (hopefully rare, if ver) choice, and I want to protect others while retaining that power. I guess I feel the responsibility to delete if I can and I think I should, and I also don't want to mislead others about that.

I'm glad you still post in my threads, Dagonee. (Wait ... hmmm, I have been posting in -other- people's threads, not any of mine, so I don't know if you do. Regardless, should you and I choose to talk about something, let's make sure you start the thread, not me.))
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Like I said...if it needs to be deleted for the health of the forum, let the moderator make that decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
I think that says more about you than me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon Boy:
And you don't see this as coercive?

---

quote:

---

I know Dag specifically has said that he wouldn't automatically not post in a thread started by someone who didn't make the pledge, but the mere existence gives others the opportunity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
I think that says more about you than me.

---

I fail to see how.

---

Because you are the one labeling a group self-identifying by a characteristic that is important to them as being the "cool" people.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
<Blithely and happily uncool for 14,000 years and counting>
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Back to the coercion idea: if what I've proposed in this thread is coercive, then the posts of most people who oppose it have been coercive.

Frankly, a definition like that makes the word seem useless to me. But as long as people are being consistent about applying it, I guess I don't have any real problem with it.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The scare quotes were there for a reason. You have designated a group self-identifying by an important characteristic as bad somehow.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
No Dag, I'm saying you're labeling that self-identifying group the "cool" people by starting this pledge.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

No Dag, I'm saying you're labeling that self-identifying group the "cool" people by starting this pledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon Boy:
And you don't see this as coercive?

---

Am I using force, intimidation, or authority? Am I somehow abrogating individual desire or will?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon Boy:
Oh, forget it. You'd rather nitpick because I didn't consult a dictionary first than address the idea.

---

What is the idea? That he's trying to change people's behavior?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I don't think I have ever deleted a thread, and I dislike it when someone else does most of the time.

However, I don't think that I would be willing to never do so, nor do I think that the option should be removed.

I have no problem with BOTH of those facts being considered when someone forms an opinion of me and my posting style. If it is the ONLY factor considered though, then it is the judging person's loss.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon Boy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon Boy:
And you don't see this as coercive?

---

Am I using force, intimidation, or authority? Am I somehow abrogating individual desire or will?

---

Oh, forget it. You'd rather nitpick because I didn't consult a dictionary first than address the idea.

---

No, I'd rather someone justify this repeated accusation that I'm being coercive.

You picked the word. Did you not mean it?

If you did mean it, please explain how I'm being coercive.
 

---

Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
 
I'll sign up
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 

quote:

---

In the immortal words of the Socrates...
...oh wait, those were deleted.

---

 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
There seems to be am implied "or else" in the statement, and that could be taken as coercive in nature.

Not that I agree it is, but I can see the point.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
Who is so-crates?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

There seems to be am implied "or else" in the statement, and that could be taken as coercive in nature.

---

What is this "or else"?

There's an implied "or else" in every thread started by a person who reserves the right to delete it. That's an "or else" backed up by the actual ability to forcibly remove others' posts.

What, exactly, is the or else associated with people taking this pledge?

Three of the highest post-count people vocally lined up against this idea. There's a significant faction of people who strongly oppose thread deletion who will not take the pledge. It's not as if I'm so popular that I'm going to intimidate people into not agreeing with me
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
I just realized that Dagonee can delete this thread, and remake it so that he's still on the pledge list.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
But will you use the power for Good or Evil? And will that involve doing something, or just your own basic nature?
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
I also found a way that all the Commies can still sign the pledge. Go ahead and pledge not to delete threads, but then just break the pledge whenever you like.

Better, if you feel like you would like to delete a post but don't want to break the pledge, just edit all your posts to be advertising spam so PJ locks it for you, and you make a little cash as a bonus.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Just as a side note and for the awareness factor, there have been times when threads have been deleted by mods/owners of the forum (not PJ for the specific threads that I'm aware of) with no notice to the thread starter or anyone who participated in those threads.

I've had at least one, possibly more, threads that were deleted. I was told after the fact, after I enquired about what happened to the threads, that it was because later posts crossed the line into bad taste, or some such thing. The person who did the deleting didn't clean up offending posts, but instead deleted the thread.

Just so you know, it can and does happen. Don't know how frequently, though...
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Yep. Do you think that neither Paul nor I realize this?

---

quote:

---

In fact, absent my idea, there is no reliable way for a former thread deleter to regain trust.

---

quote:

---

I obviously have no way to prove how much I dislike most thread deletions. I still don't want the ability taken away.

---

quote:

---

I see it sort of like those "safe house" signs people used to put in their windows so neighborhood kids would know that they could go to that house if their parents weren't home or whatever. I don't know if people do that anymore. It wasn't any kind of a stigma to not have a sign, it didn't mean that other houses were dangerous...

---

quote:

---

What is the idea? That he's trying to change people's behavior?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
For my part, Rivka, I would prefer that the ability be taken away than to require that members of the forum maintain a public list of individuals meeting their unique criteria for trustworthiness.

---

quote:

---

You don't think it's insulting to assert that the threads of non-signatory posters might not be "safe?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I don't think I've ever deleted a non-mayfly thread.

I hope I've earned the trust of the community to not capriciously delete their posts, even if I don't take a pledge.

---

quote:

---

No. I think, however, that you're trying hard to make the argument that this specific behavior is "bad" behavior,

---

quote:

---

and to deliberately ostracize those who disagree.

---

quote:

---

I don't see why maintaining a list of people we permit to stay around but don't trust enough to converse with is particularly valuable to the community.

---

quote:

---

No, Icky. It's one thing to try to change people's behavior by making an impassioned argument one way or another; that happens all the time, and I don't consider it "coercive." Can you understand why I feel a list like this is coercive in a way that saying "I personally dislike thread deletion" is not?

---

quote:

---

There is a very small -- and I believe both subliminal and completely unavoidable -- mental step from "the posters on this list are 'safe'" and "everyone not on this list is not 'safe,'" passing straight through "everyone not on this list cannot be assumed to be safe."

---

quote:

---

Everything about this particular proposal rubs me the wrong way. It seems fundamentally contrary to what I believe is the spirit of Hatrack in a way that thread deletion (for example) is not.

---

quote:

---

Does that mean that any new topic I create is now to be treated with suspicion?

---

quote:

---

If not, why not?

---

quote:

---

Jon Boy was so offended by the fact that I actually wanted to apply the meaning of "coerce" to this issue that he refused to answer.

---

quote:

---

Deleting threads is violating what dagonee and I consider to be rules of decency. Shunning people who think that it is ok to delete threads would seem to me to be exactly in line with what you've stated, in other circmstances, is the appropriate reaction.

---

quote:

---

I can understand why. You're insisting on a very specific definition of "coerce," whereas Jon Boy -- and I -- are using the more common (and connotative) one. The whole problem, from my perspective, is that you appear completely insensitive to the connotative value of what you're trying to do, here.

---

quote:

---

Lines like "So this opinion rests on your ability to decide what people's mental processes are. The step is definitely avoidable" strongly suggest to me that you're either ignorant of semiotic meaning or are willfully trying to live your life as if it doesn't exist

---

quote:

---

FWIW, I consider peer pressure to be coercive when it becomes explicitly punitive. A line like "if you don't do this, I won't do X" contains an implied threat of retaliation.

---

quote:

---

By making a list of this sort, you expand the "target circle" of this threat beyond any specific individuals whose deletions you dislike to include everyone who doesn't consider deletion as harmful as you do.

---

quote:

---

A line like "if you don't do this, I won't do X" contains an implied threat of retaliation.

---

quote:

---

Being up front about whether a particular factor will be considered is not coercive. It's honest.

---

quote:

---

The people who are really most affected by this pledge - those who I don't think will ever delete a thread but don't want to take the pledge - have generally consistently stated their belief that I am not doing this.

---

quote:

---

Also, I think your point about trust is kinda bizzare. We should trust people not to delete threads, even though they've deleted threads in the past and have been vocal saying that they will delete them in the future?

---

quote:

---

IMO, this list constitutes just such a threat.

---

quote:

---

Whether they delete threads or not is completely irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I've never deleted a thread and will never do so, but do not intend to take the pledge

---

You just did.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

it is only good form to assume that every single poster at Hatrack has such a metaphorical sign

---

quote:

---

It is about identifying people who will delete your words

---

quote:

---

It is about identifying people who will delete your words so that you can factor that into whether or not it is worth it to put a lot of effort into threads that they start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert Hugo:

quote:

---

It is about identifying people who will delete your words

---

I thought it about was identifying those who have promised not to...?

---

quote:

---

But then I think Kate and CT are the kind of people who might still choose to post a heartfelt, well-argued post regardless of whether or not they suspected that it would be deleted, because they see the inherent value in posting things that are heartfelt and well-written regardless of the fate of their words.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
Dags, do you want to explain to Squick the difference between your intentions for the thread and his interpretation of it?

---

quote:

---

Can you imagine Dag being flip and imprecise just because he doesn't think a thread is important? Would you be less pedantic if you thought a thread would be temporary?

---

quote:

---

You started this a statement about ego, which was a fundamentally wrong way to look at it. You're still there.

---

quote:

---

Squick clearly isn't understanding you. Maybe he needs to hear it another way.

Unless you're okay with him espousing his false conception of your idea?

---

quote:

---

Wow, Dags, with allies like that, who needs...

---

quote:

---

Look how easily this idea was turned to abuse. Less than 24 hours, and it's already been morphed into an enemies list. Even if it wasn't a bad idea to begin with, the semi-legitimacy it lends to truly nasty ideas makes it not worth it.

---

quote:

---

Is this really a standard you want applied to you?

---

quote:

---

Look how easily this idea was turned to abuse. Less than 24 hours, and it's already been morphed into an enemies list. Even if it wasn't a bad idea to begin with, the semi-legitimacy it lends to truly nasty ideas makes it not worth it.

---

quote:

---

I knew a kid who, when he started losing a game, would literally take his ball and go home. We stopped playing games with him after a couple times.

---

quote:

---

That our words are so important and vital that they outweigh any possible good that could come from deleting.

---

quote:

---

Looking at the likely consequences of a plan is an essential part of evaluating a plan.

---

quote:

---

That our words are so important and vital that they outweigh any possible good that could come from deleting.

---

quote:

---

That the moral decision we have made is so fundamentally superior to the moral decision another has made, that we must know who we are so we may huddle together.

---

quote:

---

But, as Tom has already pointed out, it's not a consequence of my plan. Squick keeps his list anyway.

---

quote:

---

But, as Tom has already pointed out, it's not a consequence of my plan.

---

It IS a consequence of your plan. But your plan is not the only potential cause of that consequence.

quote:

---

It's that we want this information because it is useful to us.

---

quote:

---

I think it is important in any community for people to respect the words and efforts of the people in it. Deleting them without them having any recourse is, to me, disrespectful.

---

quote:

---

Also, I know this isn't true for many people here and it is certainly less true for me than it once was, but some people put a lot of effort into certain types of their posts.

---

quote:

---

It's not that we need to "huddle together" to celebrate our superiority. It's that we want this information because it is useful to us.

---

quote:

---

I dispute this. I doubt it tells anyone on the list anything they don't already know. A list of thread deleters might do it, but not the reverse.

---

quote:

---

A list of thread deleters might do it, but not the reverse.

---

quote:

---

It's already given me useful information.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by docmagik:

quote:

---

Also, I know this isn't true for many people here and it is certainly less true for me than it once was, but some people put a lot of effort into certain types of their posts.

---

Believe it or not, thread deleters do this too. Thread deleters do not inherently see posts as valueless. If they did, then they could leave threads up or take them down--if the words were valueless it would make no difference.

It is precisely the value in the words that leads some posters to feel that sometimes the words need to go. Just like you feel the words always carry enough weight that they must stay, thread deleters feel the words carry enough weight that they occasionally need to go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

Jon Boy was so offended by the fact that I actually wanted to apply the meaning of "coerce" to this issue that he refused to answer.

---

I can understand why. You're insisting on a very specific definition of "coerce," whereas Jon Boy -- and I -- are using the more common (and connotative) one. The whole problem, from my perspective, is that you appear completely insensitive to the connotative value of what you're trying to do, here.

---

quote:

---

co·erce (kō-ûrs')
tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es

1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.

---

quote:

---

And the belief that there is never, ever, a single circumstance under which anyone's feelings, relationships, or personal issues could perhaps be a reason to delete something I have written is, to me, arrogant. And disrespectful.

---

quote:

---

Believe it or not, thread deleters do this too. Thread deleters do not inherently see posts as valueless.

---

quote:

---

And the belief that there is never, ever, a single circumstance under which anyone's feelings, relationships, or personal issues could perhaps be a reason to delete something I have written is, to me, arrogant. And disrespectful.

---

quote:

---

In reality, at it's core, this thread is a bunch of sneeches coming forward to show their stars so they know who can't go the beach parties.

---

quote:

---

But if somebody started a thread called, "Pledge to never quote law articles or case summaries in threads," no matter how much they talked about how it was just a list "for thier information," or about how it "Wasn't meant to exclude anybody," you would always feel, in your heart, it was "A list of people who don't like Dagonee's posting style."

---

quote:

---

Like...? Are you more likely to post a well-researched article on a thread started by "Flying Dracula Hair" than you were before?

---

quote:

---

The sort of ironic thing to me is that a list of thread deleters, though I think people would object to it more vehemently, is actually both much more useful and less...bad (in my opinion and not really the right word) than what Dag is proposing.

---

quote:

---

unless saying that someone can never gain forgiveness except through your pledge could be considered such

---

quote:

---

Sure, you haven't used threats or intimidation (unless saying that someone can never gain forgiveness except through your pledge could be considered such), but it is very clearly pressure.

---

quote:

---

It feels like you're being willfully ignorant about this, Dagonee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by docmagik:

quote:

---

I think it is important in any community for people to respect the words and efforts of the people in it. Deleting them without them having any recourse is, to me, disrespectful.

---

And the belief that there is never, ever, a single circumstance under which anyone's feelings, relationships, or personal issues could perhaps be a reason to delete something I have written is, to me, arrogant. And disrespectful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by docmagik:
It is precisely the value in the words that leads some posters to feel that sometimes the words need to go. Just like you feel the words always carry enough weight that they must stay, thread deleters feel the words carry enough weight that they occasionally need to go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:

I already know who I don't trust. For the most part this thread won't change that.

---

quote:

---

You know what I'd support? Adding three fields to the user profile database, tracking the number of times someone edited a post, the number of times someone deleted a post, and the number of times someone deleted a thread.

---

quote:

---

Unless it is absolutely exhaustive (lists of everyone who uses a personal insult, lists of everyone uses bad grammar, lists of everyone who avoids a question, lists of everyone who answers a question with a question, lists of everyone who bumps dead threads, lists of everyone who makes dobies), then it is specifying one particular behavior (whose moral assessment is controversial) as more important than others, and its acolytes as more equal than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
There is no way to avoid accountability. There is no deleting memories. There is no way to hide who you truly are; it will out in spite of anyone's best efforts. To speak at all is to indict yourself. Accountability is inevitable.

---

quote:

---

I wish people would stop trying to coerce me NOT to be on this list. I keep feeling like there are people negatively judging me because I decided to take a stand on something I believe in.

---

 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
Exactly - it stops the conversation. Some conversations are so dreadful that the best course is to stop it.

quote:

---

Seems to me that it does more harm than good most of the time.

---

quote:

---

Yes. I think having a number of posts assigned to them changes how a person's posts can be recieved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
Exactly - it stops the conversation. Some conversations are so dreadful that the best course is to stop it.

---

quote:

---

You know what I'd support? Adding three fields to the user profile database, tracking the number of times someone edited a post, the number of times someone deleted a post, and the number of times someone deleted a thread.

---

quote:

---

If one person feels the conversation is dreadful, they have every right to leave it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:

quote:

---

You know what I'd support? Adding three fields to the user profile database, tracking the number of times someone edited a post, the number of times someone deleted a post, and the number of times someone deleted a thread.

---

This seems as absurd to me as the original intent of this thread. Not stupid, not evil, merely absurd in the most abstract sense. We've gotten to this point where the deletion of threads seems like this magical indicator of someone's reliability and character. And it's absurd.

---

quote:

---

While I would completely trust Pop's assesments of when someone is nasty enough to be deserve to be shut down, that is not his job, I don't think he wants it, and the TPTB have not made it so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
We've gotten to this point where the deletion of threads seems like this magical indicator of someone's reliability and character. And it's absurd.

---

quote:

---

No, he doesn't lock a thread every time someone crosses the line.

---

quote:

---

Does a single person crossing the line, in the opinion of the thread starter, outweigh the value of all the other posts in the thread?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert Hugo:

quote:

---

Does a single person crossing the line, in the opinion of the thread starter, outweigh the value of all the other posts in the thread?

---

It can. That should be evaluated in a case by case basis.

---

quote:

---

The moderator has not expressed an interest in regulating relations between posters that do not fall within the domain of the ToS.

More specifically, although the moderator may agree that someone is being something unmentionable, he does not feel it is his role to police that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MightyCow:


I feel like there is an obvious connection that one could make.

---

quote:

---

Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, so please realize that we may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MightyCow:


I feel like there is an obvious connection that one could make.

---

And it is because of statements like this, based on subjective feelings but implying some sort of moral superiority, that I don't like the idea and won't participate in it.


Even though there are people on that list who would be more likely to delete a thread than I am.

---

Oh the irony! It burns!
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Squick, it seems to me that they do this as little as possible as things stand now. I have been to other boards where the power of the mod has been expanded, and I dislike those boards because the intent of the mod seems to be to lock thread he disagrees with.


One of the things I have always liked about Hatrack is that the mods, both PJ and before him KK, only step in where there is no other way of continuing the conversation. Even then, a lot of threads are locked for a day or three, then re-opened....sort of a cooling-off period.


Also, locked threads are still accessible.


Then again, I don't think that all cases of thread deletion are the same.

[ August 10, 2007, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Kwea,
I'm not really sure how you meant that. It sounds like you are implying that kat just disagrees with PJ's judgement, not that PJ doesn't do this, but you seem to be raising it as an objection to what I said.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Let me try to clarify.


I think there are a lot of times where a mod has discresion. Some times things may not be pleasent, but since no one is violating the TOS they let it go. I appreciate that, even when it is a conversation I wish would end, because I have been at sites where the mods are too quick to shut conversations down.


Other times the violations are so obvious the thread gets shut down right away.

I think that PJ has a duty, and does a good job of it, to stop obvious violations of the TOS. Anything other than that is beyond the scope of his duties.


There are times where it is a thin line, and it isn't always easy to tell where it should be drawn, but compared to other places Hatrack has a great balance between attempting to keep things civil and allow discussions to repair themselves whenever possible.


I think PJ jumps in very rarely, and as a last resort. Asking him to do so more frequently would be asking him to change his role as a mod.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I still don't know how that fits in to the conversation so far. Could you tie it to what kat and I were saying?
 

---

Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
Alright, let me see if I can explain this really clearly. (For me, that means at some length.)

Here's why I think the Sneeches analogy is apt.

Because ostensibly, Sneeches are all about positivity. They're all about how there's something good we're celebrating. But it's really obvious, that the underbelly of their behavior (if you'll pardon the joke) is negative, and has negative results.

As much as Dag says that he would take no offense at a thread called, "Pledge not to post Law Articles and Case Summaries," the fact is that it would be a negative thread. It would be a negative thread specifically directed at Dag. It would be a whole bunch of people who were coming together to say that Dag's posts were weaking Hatrack, and that if more people could be made to post in un-Daglike ways, the forum would be a better place.

It wouldn't actually help anything--the people who post like Dag would still post like that, the people who didn't like it would post vehement support. Nobody would read the thread saying anything like, "Whew, I am so glad that Goofy McLongbottom isn't going to start quoting Chemerinsky."

To deny that such a thread was simply a "We're anti-Dagonee club" would be either ignorant or just deliberately obtuse.

Now, you've stated lots of reasons why you've started this thread that weren't so much anti-anybody. Lots of people have given you a lot of benifit of the doubt about your motives.

What everybody seems to be having a hard time understanding is that, regardless of original motive, this thread still can (and, I think, does) have exactly the same feel and result as the anti-Dagonee thread I describe above.

Someone who wants to tell people they're not going to delete any threads any more doesn't need a pledge. They can just post and say so.

Someone who deletes a thread that they later regret deleting, because they've cooled off or because someone contacts them and quietly and calmly talks about what a certain post meant to them--that person can apologize in a way they feel is appropriate and try to win back trust that way.

So this thread isn't filling a need that otherwise wouldn't be filled. In fact, the only unique purpouse it seems to be filling is creating a way for people who have taken the same side of an issue to be able to identify each other and rally behind each other.

Now it has been suggested that pointing out that this thread seems intolerant and cliquish is similarly intolerant and cliquish. That we're actually being more intolerant than you because we find the thread distasteful.

This is silly. That would be like if someone called the makers of the anti-Dagonee thread out on the negativity of their thread and expressed distate at it, and the original posters replied, "Why do you got to hate? Why are you being so down on us? Why are you trying to control the way we post?"

Nobody's against your opinions on thread deletion. We're okay with them. We accept them. We think you should have the right to have those opinions.

But if it had been done in a way similar to the "thread deletion poll" thread, where everyone could voice their own side and everybody could find out the way that everybody stood on every issue, with the underlying assumption that all opinions were equally viable, that would actually give everybody all the information they needed in a way that would be much, much harder to construe in a negative way.

This thread can easily be construed in a very, very negative way. Especially given the current climate on Hatrack, it can even be seen not just as a general attack, but as a specific attack on the people most recently involved in this. And that's the part that I, personally, find the most distateful.

Hopes this helps clarify.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
The moderator has not expressed an interest in regulating relations between posters that do not fall within the domain of the ToS.

More specifically, although the moderator may agree that someone is being something unmentionable, he does not feel it is his role to police that.

Advocating taking it to the mod would require expanding the role of the mod. While I would completely trust Pop's assessments of when someone is nasty enough to be deserve to be shut down, that is not his job, I don't think he wants it, and the TPTB have not made it so.

We are left to ourselves, closer to both anarchy and freedom. The ability to delete threads is essential.

---

Here is where a lot of the same points I made were discussed. It DID take me a second to remember kat's alt, which is why I was a little confused when you first asked me.

I think the ability to stop something you started is important, although I personally have too much respect for most posters to delete a whole thread because I have an issue with it.

I can't think of a reason I would delete an established thread, but I am not willing to give up the right to do so.




As far s post counts go, I do think it is a useful measure of at least one thing.....the amount of personal investment a poster has in the community. I don't think a low post counts counts against someone, because I judge more on content than on longevity, but a high post counts can indicate a level of involvement in this community.

Whether that involvement has been positive or not is another issue completely.

[ August 10, 2007, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

We've gotten to this point where the deletion of threads seems like this magical indicator of someone's reliability and character. And it's absurd.

---

quote:

---

While I would completely trust Pop's assessments of when someone is nasty enough to be deserve to be shut down, that is not his job, I don't think he wants it, and the TPTB have not made it so.

---

quote:

---

It seems to me like people are saying that he doesn't do it enough (in their opinion), which, to me, would suggest that they disagree with his judgement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by docmagik:
In some cases, the thread starter would be okay with it, so it's not really a "general rule" kind of thing, like papa would normally take care of, but maybe for that person, on that day, it was just too much to handle.

---

quote:

---

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB.

---

quote:

---

we reserve the right to delete any message for any or no reason whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
Mr. Squicky, if the admins considered that the mod would delete every thread that needed deleting, then posters would not have the ability to delete threads.

---

quote:

---

Mr. Squicky, if the admins considered that the mod would delete every thread that needed deleting, then posters would not have the ability to delete threads.

---

quote:

---

It doesn't say in there that those are the criteria for thread or post deletion, though I can see how one might think that's implied.

---

quote:

---

People have idiosyncracies that make them disagree with PJ's decisions on what merits deletion. They still disagree on what merits deletion.

---

quote:

---

Squick, you're equating "we reserve the right to delete" with "we will delete."

---

quote:

---

But if you're opposed to thread deletion because you believe in the sanctity of the words

---

quote:

---

You know, what you could have done in that instance would be to send a message to PJ saying "I really regret posting this thread. I don't want my wife finding it and being hurt by it. Could you delete it? Thanks" and it would have been deleted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:

---

It doesn't say in there that those are the criteria for thread or post deletion, though I can see how one might think that's implied.

---

Forget implied. It is established (in the part I included in the edit) that they reserve the right to delete any posts for no reason whatsoever, let alone egregious violations of the terms explicitly laid out in the TOS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by docmagik:
I realize that some of you feel that's too bad--that it was a mistake I made to post it, and that once others have said something about it I have to respect their right to have their words preserved.

---

quote:

---

This does not mean that the criteria laid out for what members shouldn't post are the criteria by which posts and threads will be deleted. That's an implication you've drawn from it.

---

quote:

---

Oh, baloney. I just respect him enough to not wish him to stay glued to his computer all day in order to hold my hand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
I don't see this conversation coming to any conclusion and I'm bored, so you'll have to stay thinking that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
I didn't draw this implication.

You said that he might feel constrained by the TOS. I demonstrated that no constraints exist in the terms of the user agreement.

I was by no means trying to show what criteria they definitely use, only that they are free to use the criteria that you said they might not be.

---

Oh, I see. I misunderstood, sorry.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

This is a much more elegant solution than deleting the entire thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:
I don't think Dags has any hidden motive for wanting to do this. His motive are as he has stated them from the beginning. But I disagree with his opinion of how divisive this topic/thread has the potential to be.

Regardless of his intention for this thread, I can see a time where it is referenced in a non-constructive manner in the near future.I believe it is almost inevitable that it will be used as ammo in flame wars and character assignation attempts.

It could get real ugly, despite any good intentions.


So I don't support this thread, despite the fact that I have never deleted a non-mayfly thread myself. The risks outweigh the gain, IMO.


I already know who I don't trust. For the most part this thread won't change that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
You know what I'd support? Adding three fields to the user profile database, tracking the number of times someone edited a post, the number of times someone deleted a post, and the number of times someone deleted a thread.

---

I don't like that idea. It wouldn't differentiate between a deleted mayfly and other deletions. It also wouldn't give you any information as to why a thread was edited - to avoid hurt feelings? spelling error? to acknowledge the post of someone who was typing at the same time as you?

I think it could lead to the same type of ostracism as I fear this thread could lead to.
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
As a sidenote, I keep reading the thread title as "Please to not delete threads" which I KNOW is dialogue similar to some character in a movie or television show, but I can't, for the life of me, think of what.

---

*sigh* Never mind. It's from the lolcats thing.
 

---

Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
I think that dialogue style is from many "foreign accent" parodies that predate lolcats by quite a bit. I'm thinking Andy Kauffman's character from Taxi, for example.
If that makes you feel any less shameful.

--Enigmatic
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
I can't hear you. I'm still hiding my head under the couch pillows.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
If I may hazard a gentle suggestion to those who feel great loss at being bereft of their posts when threads are deleted... because after all, the Cards have told us that all our posts are subject to deletion, the forum being in the nature of living room conversations rather than permanent pronouncements set in stone......

My suggestion is that instead of maintaining blacklists of posters who might delete threads (in either negative or positive space), could you possibly just make copies of all your posts before you post them? Like, keep a word processing document open while you're posting, and just do a quick copy and paste of each post before you hit the "add reply" button. Then your words will not be lost. I think it's a great solution, and feels a lot less .... I don't know... scary, and intransigent and punitive and argumentative and didactic and ... yeah! coercive!

Just an idea. Hope it's helpful.
 

---

Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tatiana:
My suggestion is that instead of maintaining blacklists of posters who might delete threads (in either negative or positive space), could you possibly just make copies of all your posts before you post them? Like, keep a word processing document open while you're posting, and just do a quick copy and paste of each post before you hit the "add reply" button...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tatiana:
If I may hazard a gentle suggestion to those who feel great loss at being bereft of their posts when threads are deleted...

---

Note: I'm not one of those people.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Its not necessaily about valuing having our words saved so we can look at them, tatiana. In fact, for me, thats the smallest peice of the puzzle.
 

---

Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
Its not necessaily about valuing having our words saved so we can look at them, tatiana. In fact, for me, thats the smallest peice of the puzzle.

---

I'd like to hear Dagonee say this as well. Not sure it'd clarify anything, I just want to know if it's the time and emotion he puts into his post, or the interaction / conversation aspect with others that he considers the unforgivable loss when a thread is deleted.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
It's like why I can never throw away greeting cards, wedding announcements, or those business cards with people's pictures on them. I don't actually look at them again, but the thought of throwing them away makes me want to pick at my moles.
 

---

Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
It's like why I can never throw away greeting cards, wedding announcements, or those business cards with people's pictures on them. I don't actually look at them again, but the thought of throwing them away makes me want to pick at my moles.

---

I'm the same way actually, and have a small stack of cards that have survived numerous moves and cleanings. Then again, the last wedding invitation I got I really wanted tear up and then go cry in a corner somewhere... Can I equate that to deleting a thread?
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 


(((Feyd)))

But were you able to?

Here's the problem with cluttering in general, though, to be serious on that subject. I have so much stuff that I can never find the stuff that matters. I've read a couple of books on the subject, and I know I have a serious problem. I had an insight a couple of weeks ago as to how it is fundamentally like my compulsive eating.

Now I'm not comparing Hatrack to my basement, but I am wondering if the emotional impulse to never discard anything doesn't deserve to be challenged.
 

---

Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
 
No, I did neither. Instead, I wound up actually making the trip to another state and going to the wedding because 1) I never was good at telling her no, and 2) I figured as miserable as I'd be, she'd be much happier if I was there. At least the second part seemed to be proven true.

The only thing that's keeping me from being a certifiable packrat is that I live in an apartment. And I like being able to see SOME of my floor, let alone use it.
 

---

Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
 
I will preface this by saying I haven't read the entire 9 pages so it is entirely possible this thread has gone on to another topic but personally I assume since I am posting on a public forum in a thread started by someone else there is a potential for it to be deleted. If for some reason I need to save the conversation I can copy and paste into my word program. I've had threads deleted where I was participating and even if I didn't understand the reasons why I respected the OP's decision and the emotion behind it.

Then again, I start topics and only get a handful of replies and it quickly drops to the nether pages so who am I to talk?
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Speaking of clutter, I am now in an existential crisis because my my garbage disposal has tripped its circuit, and poking it as best I know how hasn't fixed it so my husband comes back from his trip, if I mention it, he will ask me where the manual is with that smug tone that means he knows I don't know where it is, and therefore he can't do anything and then I will have to kill him.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Kwea,
I don't see where what you quoted and what you said match up.

I'll clarify. kat said that it is not PJ's job nor something he does to decide when someone is being nasty enough to shut a thread down or (by extension) edit or delete someone's posts.

quote:

---

While I would completely trust Pop's assessments of when someone is nasty enough to be deserve to be shut down, that is not his job, I don't think he wants it, and the TPTB have not made it so.

---

I demonstrated that this is not the case. PJ clearly does do this and it is explicitly laid out as part of his job.

It seems to me like people are saying that he doesn't do it enough (in kat's opinion), which, to me, would suggest that she disagrees with his judgment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
Speaking of clutter, I am now in an existential crisis because my my garbage disposal has tripped its circuit, and poking it as best I know how hasn't fixed it so my husband comes back from his trip, if I mention it, he will ask me where the manual is with that smug tone that means he knows I don't know where it is, and therefore he can't do anything and then I will have to kill him.

---

Maybe you can find a copy of the manual online or, if it's still in production, get another copy from a store.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Yes, it's important to remember there are always options.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Well, let's just say that creativity in avoidance can be met with creativity in assistance. (heh heh)
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

As a side note, I wonder if this is fundamental difference in a view of authority?

I prefer more freedom and less safety.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:
Not really....we can always edit out our own comments.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ela:
Or delete them.

---

Oh, can you?
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Yup.
 

---

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
Yes, you can. The only problem (from the point of view of the deleter) might be if someone quoted the post you want to delete, because of course you can't delete someone else's post, unless you are the thread starter and delete the whole thread.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Yep. Of course, I did realize the irony of stating that after defending the right to delete threads.


The point is that you can ask someone to delete their quote of you, but it up to the poster to decide if they want to comply. With the option of thread deletion, providing you started the thread, you have another option.

As long as you can live with the fallout of that decision, that is....
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ela:
Yes, you can. The only problem (from the point of view of the deleter) might be if someone quoted the post you want to delete, because of course you can't delete someone else's post, unless you are the thread starter and delete the whole thread.

---

Thread deletion isn't only used to take back posts the thread started regretted making. It's also used to remove posts made by others that the thread starter found hurtful.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Which is where things start getting sticky.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I so pledge, add me to the list.

I will also have to sort through 9 pages of this to see how this thread could have possible gotten this long.
 

---

Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
I do not believe I ever *have* deleted a thread, so I have no particular difficulty accepting this pledge, for what it's worth. If it will make people feel more secure in posting, I welcome it.
 

---

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 

quote:

---

Thread deletion isn't only used to take back posts the thread started regretted making. It's also used to remove posts made by others that the thread starter found hurtful.

---