First I'm trying to come up with a range of options. I'm obviously exluding moderator priveledges to delete threads. Here's what I've got so far... I'm trying to include Mayfly threads in it and I'm not sure I'm doing a good job.
Never, ever, ever. To do so is a disrespectful betrayal of trust
I avoid it, It's annoying and disrespectful most of the time, but am glad the option exists.
I want to tread lightly on the universe and feel that Mayfly threads are sometimes an appropriate medium for communicating, and that thread deletion sometimes does less harm than leaving hurtful speech up.
I am ambivalent
I delete threads right and left, it has nothing to do with respecting others, I'm excercising my mod-given freedom to do so.
New option: Never, ever, ever (except for Mayflies). To do so is a disrespectful betrayal of trust
(if you feel inclined to agree with one of the options but for different reasons elucidating on those reasons would be enlightening)
[ August 09, 2007, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I choose Option 1, but not for the reason you supplied with it. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In the past, I have been a very vocal opponent to (non mayfly) thread deletion. It is rude and destructive. I have boycotted the threads of known threadeleters. My feelings have not changed.
I have also seen a few times where I think that deleting the thread was appropriate. They've been few and far between, but I've seen them.
I have no problems with mayflies which are labeled as such.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
(to twinky) Why then? *curious*
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
I'll vote option two (though I also lean towards option three on good days)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Option one with the exception of mayflies. I'm not sure why you seem to think that being accepting of mayflies necessitates having a softer position on thread-deletion in general.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Option 2, but for different reasons.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Mayflies sometimes end up with complex discussion in them, despite their stated short term nature. I guess maybe I'm being too literalist, but even with their stated nature, deletion is deletion, either way.
To me, being accepting of mayflies puts you in option 2.
I personally vaccilate between 2-3.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
added new option but put it at the bottom... I guess I should have numbered them... I'll do it later...
AJ
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I am not glad the option exists. Since it does exist, I don't mind when I am told up front that a thread will not remain.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I think a good compromise might be allowing us to temporarily lock threads that we start, pending moderator action. I don't see a reason to allow thread-starters to delete entire threads. Starting a thread doesn't mean that you own it, and I'd say people who start threads have no more right to delete them than anyone else.
I can't think of any particular reason that I would delete a thread, barring things like forum glitches or mayflies (which I don't actually do anyway).
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I delete threads when I think it makes the forum better to do so, or when I think it's right to do so, or when I think it's best for our community. I like having the ability to delete threads. I think it's a good thing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I avoid it; it's annoying much of the time, but am glad the option exists.
I feel that Mayfly threads are sometimes an appropriate medium for communicating, and that thread deletion sometimes does less harm than leaving hurtful speech up.
As edited, I agree with both of these.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
BannaOj, I am right about 2-3, just like you, however ...
... may I ask for yet another option? My tweaking of the poll would be to include automatic deletion of inactive threads after some period of time (say, 6 months or 1 year, as had been the expectation from TPTB awhile back). I know this will cause shudders in some of my dear friends, but I really do fear we've become too thread-bound. OSC or his lovely wife once wrote about this, something like not wanting the fora to be a continual reliving of past conversations, but always continuing to move forward into new ones. I am paraphrasing horribly, but that's what I remember of the sentiment, and I agree with it.
----
Edited to add: I wouldn't have any qualms about an individual reposting something he or she had said before (a'la The Rabbit's detailed environmental issues posts). I'd just like to see such things thrown anew into the fray, one at a time, to be looked at afresh.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
*4*
But no one is surprised. I am content.
I am also unique.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
Could you add an option for:
You can delete threads??? Oh...Hm...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
CT, even when posts did "fall off" the forum, I believe the time frame was on the order of 2+ years, not 6-12 months.
Personally, I would be ok with 2 years (3 would be better), but would be unhappy with less than 18 months.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I see deleting threads sort of like destroying a project that one person has started but on which others have worked and to which others have contributed. If I started a blanket and invited people to contribute squares, I wouldn't feel that I should be able to just destroy the blanket if it wan't turning out the way I wanted. I could stop working on it, even proclaim that I wanted nothing more to do with it, but not destroy what other people had contributed.
Sort of.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: CT, even when posts did "fall off" the forum, I believe the time frame was on the order of 2+ years, not 6-12 months.
No, I don't think so, at least not as it was planned. That plan kind of fell by the wayside, though. I think it ended up being too much work, perhaps?
Originally, the plan was that the forum would be pruned about every six months, then that extended to a year (unofficially, I believe), and obviously at this point has gone well beyond a year.
To my knowledge, the official policy is still pruning all non-archived threads more than six months old (if it was changed it was some time since the landmark archive was created, and I'd think some time before I became Janitor). However, since space hasn't been an issue for a while, it's been let slide a bit. If it does happen, I just hope people won't get upset. But the longer it goes, the worse the search function gets, so you gotta take the bad with the good, I guess.
Does that answer anything?
--PJ
[Edited for clarity]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't know about intent or policy. But in terms of what has actually ever happened ("ever" since I have been a member, that is), the only posts that I know have fallen off are all older then 2 years.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I refuse to participate in this farce! Stop coercing me! Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That's why I specifically spoke in terms of "the expectation of the powers that be." The expectation was never well matched by the reality.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Sorry, I just woke up from a nap. What a grump!
Color me embarrassed. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: The expectation was never well matched by the reality.
So just like real life, then? Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Well, my life, for sure. It was supposed to be wine and roses. It is, instead, more like Tab and stinkbugs (as of late).
This will change, I vow. There is more and better to come.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: It was supposed to be wine and roses. It is, instead, more like Tab and stinkbugs (as of late).
Tell me about it!
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: There is more and better to come.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Option 1: I'll never do it and its simply disrespectful to delete other posters words. There are trivial exceptions, accounts being hacked into, moderator actions, the usual exemptions that most reasonable people would agree with.
I prefer the convention on many other forums that only moderators can delete threads (and in the vast majority of cases, they will lock rather than delete).
That said, I find the whole pledge thread distasteful. Sure, there's an inkling of the whole "guilty before proven innocent" thing, although I am sure that it is unintended....and its a minor reason.
My primary objection is that it is not likely to produce a beneficial result, but has already generated a number of negative effects and will continue to do so if people keep at it.
There's a saying (badly paraphrased probably), a bird in hand is better than two in the bush. This is like burning down every bush you encounter on the off chance that there might be a man-eating lion behind it. Sure, its good to be against man-eating lions, but how many are really going to be hiding behind bushes, and how many lions are really going to stop by burning down their foliage?
Its late and I'm tired, I hope this sounds more normal than it probably does.
Bottom line: Nice thing to be opposed to, horrible way of going about it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Okay...did I miss something whilst at a conference? Why are there three threads about thread deletion? *confusion!*
-pH
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Because it is stupid, it exists, and it is garnering Controversy!
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I am ambivalent. However I am very interested in the ad at the bottom of the page as I write, for The Shower Manager. Does Your Teen Stay in the Shower Way Too Long? Get them out automatically with the Shower Manager! Click Now to Stop the Long Showers!
But electric-shock collars are way more versatile, if they're waterproof. Then you could automatically stop them from using too much dental floss. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Hmm, I tried to pledge in the other thread, with an exception for prior threads, but my post wasn't noticed. (I'm not surprised with all of the furor over there! Sheesh!) Anyway, something was brought up there and again here about deleting to prevent harm to other posters, and I think that is a good reason to delete threads. If I started a thread and some troll started posting hurtful things about another person, then yeah, I'd delete the thread if the janitor wasn't around to edit the offensive posts.
So, I'll go with:
I hate thread deletion and think that it is really abused, but: I want to tread lightly on the universe and feel that Mayfly threads are sometimes an appropriate medium for communicating, and that thread deletion sometimes does less harm than leaving hurtful speech up.
If a mayfly thread of mine garners some good conversation, I'm likely to leave it up--unless the whole reason I made it a mayfly is because it has some sensitive information of mine in the post.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I see deleting threads sort of like destroying a project that one person has started but on which others have worked and to which others have contributed. If I started a blanket and invited people to contribute squares, I wouldn't feel that I should be able to just destroy the blanket if it wan't turning out the way I wanted. I could stop working on it, even proclaim that I wanted nothing more to do with it, but not destroy what other people had contributed.
Sort of.
Seems like a very good analogy to me.
So how about someone who says: "I'm getting a lot of squares, despite my repeated requests to the contrary, that make this a totally different project which I can't support. Everyone who wants their squares back has one day to claim them, then I am chunking the whole thing."
Because, with your analogy, I did precisely that and not only got pretty well excoriated for it, but also accused (without any support whatsoever) of having an established pattern of so behaving. Across two forums. I was pretty shocked at the hostility I received... and I didn't respond well to it.
Consequently, this post is arguably my most substantive post since that day, and I certainly have felt much less welcome and/or inclined to participate... especially on Sake.
I know I have much bigger fish to fry than how you all feel about thread deletion, and I also am certain that many of you do as well. I think I can safely say that the level of escalation on this whole issue indicates that a lot of people either have way too easy a life or have their priorities severely out of whack.
Just my $.02, as a known and labeled thread deleter.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So how about someone who says: "I'm getting a lot of squares, despite my repeated requests to the contrary, that make this a totally different project which I can't support. Everyone who wants their squares back has one day to claim them, then I am chunking the whole thing."
The opportunity to reclaim the squares overcomes much of my objection, although better would be saving it yourself and making it available for those who miss the deadline.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I know I have much bigger fish to fry than how you all feel about thread deletion, and I also am certain that many of you do as well. I think I can safely say that the level of escalation on this whole issue indicates that a lot of people either have way too easy a life or have their priorities severely out of whack.
And to think that I thought that thread deletion is (edit: often) a sign that the person doing it lacks respect for other people's words and opinions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I also wanted to add that I do not call people out for deleting threads in general. Rather, I respond to arguments put forth as to why it's a good thing, usually after someone else has called someone out for deleting a thread and someone else else has presented a justification for doing so.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think deleting a thread that has turned hurtful is perfectly fine. Of course, this is a sore spot for me, and I think that anyone who worries that his/her post in a thread might cause said thread to be deleted should probably think twice about what he/she is saying.
-pH
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I have a similar inclination towards thread deletion and guns. I'm vaguely in support of people's right to use them, but I'm deeply suspicious of those who avail themselves of this ability, and I think that the world would be better off if people stopped outright.
quote:Of course, this is a sore spot for me, and I think that anyone who worries that his/her post in a thread might cause said thread to be deleted should probably think twice about what he/she is saying.
I think that's just the kind of censorship that stifles fruitful thought. At worst, I don't want to have to worry about a thread being deleted because the principal poster is moody or off his/her meds.
[ August 10, 2007, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What about the people whose posts don't cause worries that they would cause a thread to be deleted?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Or what about those posters who may actually intend on causing the thread to be deleted? Or in the extreme case, an initial poster that may intend on deleting the thread in the case of a convincing case being made that is contrary to their views?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think deleting a thread that has turned hurtful is perfectly fine.
If there were no other recourse, I might agree with this. However, there are other ways to deal with this, such as appealing to the moderator.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jim, I would say that (continuing the blanket square analogy) that abandoning the project is fine - or even disclaiming the project. This could be done with threads by editing the first post - and any of the rest of your own posts - to say that. You could "take back" your squares except where they have been quoted.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And again, would be people agree that anyone who participated in a thread (or heck, how about any registered user) should be allowed to delete the thread? If not, what makes the person who started it different - I mean other that they can based on how the software is set up?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If you're really that brilliant, you can write the words again.
:says the guy who sends himself his ongoing novel through email at least once a week.:
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Can you give me back the time I spent on the deleted posts?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why should I?
I don't really like you.
I'll give Tom his time back, though. I like Tom.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: (to twinky) Why then? *curious*
It blurs the line between user and moderator by encouraging a sense of individual "ownership" over a thread. Also, combined with the ability to delete individual posts and the unlabeled edit window, it discourages the "think before you post" mentality, and as a result I think a lot of people get their feelings hurt in heated discussions because people post too quickly. Making my three proposed changes would help change that while not, in my opinion, impacting the community substantively in a negative way.
I think the only positive effect of user thread deletion is that it lightens the moderator's workload somewhat. Whether that's the opinion of the site administration or not, though, I'm pretty sure that my proposed changes won't be implemented, since I've raised these suggestions more than once in the past and the status quo hasn't changed. Their reasons are their reasons, and while they do take suggestions here it's not as though this is my website. I'll continue to share my opinion when it's relevant, of course. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And again, would be people agree that anyone who participated in a thread (or heck, how about any registered user) should be allowed to delete the thread? If not, what makes the person who started it different - I mean other that they can based on how the software is set up?
That sums up perfectly why I don't like the fact that the opening poster can delete the whole thread. I don't think they have any special priviledge of place in the conversation by virtue of the fact that they started it. In "discussion" threads, anyway. I would probably make an exception for landmark & personal announcement type threads where only one poster is making long substantive posts and other posters are briefly commenting/congratulating/commiserating.
And Jim, despite the fact that I disagreed (and still do) with your decision to delete the thread in question I miss your posting and would without hesitation post in any thread you start (assuming, of course, I had something I thought relevent to contribute).
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I have a similar inclination towards thread deletion and guns. I'm vaguely in support of people's right to use them, but I'm deeply suspicious of those who avail themselves of this ability, and I think that the world would be better off if people stopped outright.
quote:Of course, this is a sore spot for me, and I think that anyone who worries that his/her post in a thread might cause said thread to be deleted should probably think twice about what he/she is saying.
I think that's just the kind of censorship that stifles fruitful thought. At worst, I don't want to have to worry about a thread being deleted because the principal poster is moody or off his/her meds.
Damn, that was uncalled for. If that's what you call "fruitful thought," I'd appreciate it if you just didn't ever address anything I posted. Ever.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And Jim, [snipped because I don't remember the incident] I miss your posting and would without hesitation post in any thread you start (assuming, of course, I had something I thought relevent to contribute).
Me, too!
edit to add: don't expect to see me in the football threads, though!
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Thanks for the votes of confidence.
As for the difference being the original poster makes, it's that word: original. Someone had the idea and initiated it, bringing it into the world. That's why I think Kate's analogy is a very good one... while certainly not the only one with an original contribution to the project, the initiator *does*, IMO, have a certain ownership of the thing by virtue of being the one who started the ball rolling.
I think denying that is every bit as unfair as erasing someone else's work. When an actor participates in a film, they sometimes have *all* of their scenes left on the cutting room floor, usually for reasons that aren't their fault at all. When I go in and do a little work for a friend on a recording session, my stuff may be (and has been on occasion) entirely left behind. When a well known engineer/producer generously gave his time to my band as a personal favor and recorded one of our songs for us, we unhesitatingly dropped his version of it because, in all of our estimation, it utterly failed to capture the song. No one takes offense in those situations. Disappointment, for sure, but not offense.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that the difference is in the way we think of the original poster. I don't think of the threads as being the creation of one poster in which we all help but rather a collaboration that one person starts but is a community effort.
If I started more threads, I might feel differently about this.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jim, Do you think threads creator's should be able to demand that people not engage in topic drift?
edit: How far does this control go? It seems absolute in your view.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Thanks for the votes of confidence.
As for the difference being the original poster makes, it's that word: original. Someone had the idea and initiated it, bringing it into the world. That's why I think Kate's analogy is a very good one... while certainly not the only one with an original contribution to the project, the initiator *does*, IMO, have a certain ownership of the thing by virtue of being the one who started the ball rolling.
I think that can be true, most notably in the landmark-type threads. I think it's completely opposite in the threads where the first post is something like a link to a news story with the question "What does everybody think of this?" and other posters write in-depth responses. In that situation I think it's ludicrous to assign "ownership" based on who posted the link first -- one of the other posters might have started the thread if there wasn't already one on that topic. Since we tend to encourage people to post in existing threads rather than start duplicates I dislike the idea that the first poster owns the thread or gets to set the terms for the discussion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I especially think that this is the case where the original poster deletes the thread because someone in it was posting opinions that they didn't like, which, if I recall correctly, is why you deleted the recent thread Jim.
I think that the idea of the threat of deleting a thread if people don't agree with you should never be an acceptible part of Hatrack.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I think that the idea of the threat of deleting a thread if people don't agree with you should never be an acceptable part of Hatrack.
Actually, I agree with that as well.
It is the ability to delete a personal thread when someone is being nasty that I value and do not believe it should be taken away.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Mr. Squicky, I disagree with your characterization of Jim's deletion (while still disagreeing with his action.)
I can understand his motivation of not wanting to have his name associated with something he found profoundly distasteful in a way that is not merely deleting because the majority of posters disagreed with him.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think I saw the parts of the thread in question. I got the summary afterwards. If my impression is incorrect, I think I may owe Jim an apology.
I had gotten the impression the someone was posting things highly critical of the Bush administration and Jim told them to stop, and when they didn't, deleted the thread.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There has been at least one poster who did exactly that, and then reposted the initial post in a new thread and repeatedly deleted it when the conversation did not go the way he wanted.
That was not Jim.
Edited to add, because I originally tried to edit it into my last post, but hit "quote" instead of "edit" and then deleted (oh horrors! ) the resultant double post:
I can understand his motivation of not wanting to have his name associated with something he found profoundly distasteful in a way that is not merely deleting because posters disagreed with him. I wish there had been a way for him to remove his name from the thread without deleting it, however.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If those posts were still around, we could discuss them specifically, instead of guessing at what really happened.
Viva la revolución!
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
[Edited to acknowledge Mr. Squicky's statement above. Especially in light of that, what I wrote was out of line and I apologize.]
To answer your question... I think thread drift is inevitable and natural and no I don't feel like it is just cause for deleting a thread at all. However I do feel like multiple-posting completely off topic, in a controversial and inflamatory manner, refusing legitimate discussion, ignoring those who attempt to address you and who are calling you out for being offensive is a rather disgusting combination of trolling and spamming... and yes I support the right of the thread starter to take action in those circumstances.
And that's regardless of the opinions contained therein and I would have done the same thing to Jay, Mig, or Bean Counter in a heartbeat, though I expect Jay and Mig would have had the courtesy and consideration to shut up when their behavior was called.
Dana and Kate, I totally get where you are coming from and while I'm not in complete agreement, your position makes sense. This is a disagreement we can discuss, not something that calls for lecturing and ostracision, which is what I felt like I was receiving.
If I had no concern for the rights of other posters, I would not have given notice at all that the thread was going to be deleted. Dagonee, above, was the first acknowledgement by anyone of what I thought was a fairly significant action, at least in terms of what my view was of the rights of other posters on the thread (i.e. that I *am* concerned for them, even if not as much as others would like).
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm sorry you feel ostracized, Jim. I have always liked interacting with you and considered you a friend. I don't think I've ever ostracized you. If you feel like you don't want to spend time in either of the places I can interact with you, though, I don't know where that leaves us.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Oh, I'll get over it, Icky. I always do .
But it stung to wake up, on my 39th birthday no less, to find a number of people who I like and respect were pretty pissed off at me. I probably would have gotten over it a lot faster had all this happened in real life, but I have more than enough real life issues to make Hatrack and Sake truly back-burner things for me and I really didn't have the energy to hash it all out.
But I freely admit that I'd never stay away for too long... which is why I don't post huffy, breathless, "I'm leaving" messages anymore-- they simply aren't true. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jim, I think I do owe you an apology. I still disagree with your action, but it was nowhere near as outrageous as I had been led to believe. It is entirely possible that others also had a mistaken impression of what you did. That's sort of what happens when you delete the evidence.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Is anytihng we write here actually worth anything for posterity? I hypothesize that if we were shakespeare or plato (or even OSC's Locke and Demosthenese) we wouldn't be posting here.
And while it is a beautiful idea, I don't know that OSC's Locke and Demosthenes discourse actually is viable in our non-fiction world.
I think more people care about Brangelina.
So I am cyincal about retaining evidence for posterity... who says we deserve posterity?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's sort of what happens when you delete the evidence.
True Dat.
Thanks for the apology.
And apologies to everyone for the derail... I really didn't mean to draw this much attention... I just saw myself as a relevant example.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Since I was involved in the discussion around your last thread deletion, Jim, I feel the need to point out that our recollections of the converastions surrounding it are very different. I didn't see any hostility directed to you on sake, unless we have very different definitions of the word. Several people said they wished you wouldn't do it or expressed their disapproval. No one attacked you for it. I'm sorry you feel ostracized as a result, but I've gone back and re-read the conversation on sake twice now and people's reactions to you in it are considerably less harsh than prior posting of your own on Hatrack that you have defended as not being out of line.
And yes, you gave notice, but you gave 30 minutes notice on sake, not the one day notice you used in your example to Dagonee that he said would alleviate most of his objections to thread deletion. I don't know if you gave the same 30 minutes notice on the actual thread or not, and we obviously can't check, but given that most people aren't here continuously throughout the day that's really not enough notice to make a difference, as far as I'm concerned. I think giving the example of a days notice here and comparing it to your own thread disingenuously implies that that's what you actually did, when it's not.
I've defended you before, on other matters. The fact that I disagree with you on this one doesn't mean I don't want you around. I disagree with plenty of people that I still manage to be friends with.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I freely admit that I took things too personally. It was particularly egregious with your own posting, El Jay, and that's one of the reasons I felt I owed you an apology (better late than never!)
And, if I may back up a bit: I *felt* ostracised... past tense. I have been gradually posting again on both forums.
Banna, I don't knwo that anyone has said anything worth saving here for "posterity", but it's *clearly* worth it to some people. I do know I have one thread that I look forward to showing my kids again in ten years or so (I do have my own copy of it). Edit: on the other hand, I largely agree with you-- this is the internet, and not even wikipedia... which I think says enough right there.
Further edit: No, I didn't give a day's notice. I recall trying to give an hour, but my recollection may well be off. I used a day's notice in my comparative example because I was talking about the quilting project... where communication would certainly be slower and where the effort to produce a square is probably much longer term than the effort to produce a post. I was trying to stay within the analogy, not mislead on what I did. Apologies, again, for the misconstruance.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Accepted, and thank you, again. (And I did check on the timeframe before I posted, because I wanted to be accurate.)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Overwriting original source history is a really really reallyBAD idea. Which is what automatic deletion is. Tain't as if everything that has been written and will be written on Hatrack could ever fill its storage capacity. Not when ya consider that the hardware is gonna wear out and be replaced by new systems with ever larger storage capacity faster than folks will type in new stuff.
We've already lost the original reactions to the Afghanistan's TwinBuddhas and NewYorkCity's TwinTowers (correlated well before 9/11) due to quick&dirty repairs of hack attacks. We've already lost the original reactions to HurricaneKatrina due to deletions by the thread originators. Anybody wanna say that they contained only links and keywords for searches that are irrelevant to conversations today? Anybody wanna claim that they remember all of the keywords or the addresses/websites of those links?
Should people have to refind links and retype responses to questions they've already answered every time some lazy "I'm smarter than science" narcissist posts the same old nonsense by Junk"Science", American"Enterprise"Institute, MichaelCrichton, Institute for Creation"Science", "Focus on the Family", etc? How many times do you think that eg Dagonee is gonna be willing to refind links and retype responses to the same type of legal questions? Or Rabbit will respond to the same ol' antiClimateChange assertions? Etc. "Been there, done that" is a disincentive. A strong one after many repetitions because it's easy to post nonsense, and a time-consuming process to demonstrate why it's nonsense. Without a quick&easy way to refind old responses, eventually this forum will be drowning in misinformation and disinformation.
Some of the deletions are so pointless that it's hard to imagine even a bad motive for taking the time to delete. eg Someone ?Strider?fugu13? made the effort to post a really nice simple&easy-to-understand answer to a question concerning how continuous compound interest works via algebraic expansion. Gone. Found the thread, and found the contents had been deleted. Ain't as if the contents became suddenly useless, or that there'd been even the most minor hint of unpleasantry in that thread.
[ August 10, 2007, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think deleting a thread is like vomiting. Sometimes it's the only way to get rid of the poison. Sometimes it can't be helped. Folks who do it on purpose need professional help. A warning is always nice. If you go boating on stormy seas for fun, don't complain when it happens.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
And like vomiting, often times it might seem like the right idea at the time, but it often causes more harm than good when better methods are available.
Watch what you eat, for example.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It is the ability to delete a personal thread when someone is being nasty that I value and do not believe it should be taken away.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a personal thread, and if there is, I'm not sure how it grants special considerations to the person.
quote: I think deleting a thread that has turned hurtful is perfectly fine.
Let's say that there is a six page thread. The first page is inane, the second has a few truly insightful gems on it, and the last four are vitriol, deleting that thread still seems to be shadowy business. It's strikes me as a class of book burning.
___________________
It's a rare time when I'm charged with underestimating my own sense of judgment, but I can't imagine deciding that someone's post, or a thread with a variety of posts, are too awful to survive, especially if they are emotionally evocative. I probably wouldn't make a very good moderator, though, I wouldn't be impartial and I wouldn't delete posts.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)