posted
To extend the analogy from spam, starting a thread is not abuse. Starting a thread for non-communal reasons for the purpose of exploiting a captive audience for profit is definitely abuse, and for non-profit reasons, may or may not be.
I think deleting a thread has the same kind of continuum.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think deleting a thread has the same kind of continuum.
The problem with applying that continuum is that deleting a thread deletes others' posts, including those not involved in the bad behavior used to justify the deletion, and starting a spam thread doesn't.
A spam thread can be corrected - the harm caused by it is reversible. Deleted posts cannot be recovered unless one is lucky.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think of the forum as a conversation that happens to be usually written down. The written record is the bonus, the privilege, a side effect of the medium. There's no right to it. If it's gone, then the conversation is remembered the same way as most conversations - in memory.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: It certainly isn't a right, but it's like...the ability to choose our own username or reset our password or join in the first place. It's possible because of the programming. I suppose I could be confusing freedoms and abilities, but I do not concede the word privilege.
Being able to post on this forum at all is a privilege -- one that can be taken away, and has been taken away from some people. All of the abilities we have to make posts, edit them, and delete them are privileges given to us by the people who own, operate, and moderate the forum.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think once the thread is going, you have to live with it. If you don't like the way threads drift, stop participating once they've veered off topic. The other people may well want to keep going.
There wouldn't be much left around here if everyone got to delete threads any time they got a little miffed. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think of the forum as a conversation that happens to be usually written down. The written record is the bonus, the privilege, a side effect of the medium. There's no right to it. If it's gone, then the conversation is remembered the same way as most conversations - in memory.
I don't think of it that way, and don't participate in it on those terms. I do a LOT of research for some of my posts, and a lot of people appreciate it at least some of the time. Moreover, I spend a lot of time drafting/revising some posts before hitting Submit in order to make them as clear/useful/accurate as possible.
The type of interaction had on these forums is not possible in conversations.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being good is meaningless -- both personally and socially -- without acting good. Moreover, I balk at his definition of "good;" while each of the items is broad enough to include the things I consider important, they're also broad enough to include things I consider irrelevant distractions.
Agreed, Tom.
Neither of you are disagreeing with Richard Taylor here, actually. Part of the confusion may be due to a very specific use of certain terms (and you may not have been exposed to his specific delineation of that usage earlier in a passage), or it might be that you haven't had a full and/or accurate exposure to what he wrote. Either way, what is disagreed with above isn't an accurate summary of Taylor.
[Taylor does emphasize action and the importance of doing as well. Thuough his and your definition of "the good" may or may not match, he does think meaningfulness is connected to actually doing good things in the world.]
quote:Work that is hard and onerous is not thereby rendered meaningless. Indeed, it is almost a mark of truly meaningful tasks that they are hard. Important goals are seldom reached easily.
posted
rivka: Thats a good point. However, I was only responding to Javert's initial point about what is possible by programming. Furthermore, I would draw a distinction between someone choosing settings/parameters when setting up software and "programming."
Indeed, without looking at the details of the software in question (or without asking the people that initially set up the software), I would not necessarily assume that: a) The software necessarily gave a discrete setting for whether deleting a thread is possible b) If the parameter was available, that a "deliberate choice" was actually made when the software was installed as opposed to an arbitrary decision or perhaps even the "default" setting was chosen
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thread starter having the power to delete the thread at any time creates a horribly lopsided power structure. Someone can start a thread and make it as heated and one-sided as they like, then as soon as they don't like the way it's going any more, they can delete it.
It's not just having a conversation and deciding you don't like it so you'll stop talking. It's starting an argument, then waiting until a lot of people are involved and blowing an airhorn so nobody gets to talk any more.
Seems pretty rude to everyone who still had something to say.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a good point, Dag. I guess that's why I have a continuum - I do think that deleting threads can sometimes be bad and is sometimes just fine. Deleting a thread where people have done research and crafted arguments is very different from deleting a personal thread where someone decided pull out the nasty-o-matic.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom's comment from the pledge thread, I think, really belongs here:
quote:I think the mere idea of castigating thread deleters is laughably anti-funny. 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.
I guess that I find the uproar over deleted threads to be a little...overblown.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I guess that I find the uproar over deleted threads to be a little...overblown.
It's certainly proven to be an excellent way to rile people up. I suppose if that were your intent, the best way to do so would be start a good ol' fightin' post, draw everyone in, and delete it... Then start a second post justifying deleting the first one.
ANARCHY!
edit: I edited this post, but I'm not telling what I changed!
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess that I find the uproar over deleted threads to be a little...overblown.
I, on the other hand, don't understand why there isn't more of a general uproar over thread deletion.
I don't spend time posting so my words can be deleted. So an interesting conversation i was taking part in can be ended and wiped away.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Tom's comment from the pledge thread, I think, really belongs here:
quote:I think the mere idea of castigating thread deleters is laughably anti-funny. 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.
I guess that I find the uproar over deleted threads to be a little...overblown.
Fine. I will note that Tom is best known for flinging zippy one-liners into complicated discussions - he chooses not to put the kind of effort into posting here that some other people do.
If Hatrack didn't have a significant number of posters who do put research and significant writing effort into constructing posts, I doubt it would interest me nearly as much. Deletion of threads threatens the aspect of Hatrack I like best, and I'm going to comment on it.
Not one of the people who have simply dismissed the complaints (as opposed to those who have offered opposing viewpoints such as Kat and rivka) about thread deletion have bothered to address anyone's reason for opposing it.
I guess that I find the uproar* over the uproar over deleted threads to be a little...dismissive.
*Again, as distinct from the discussion about whether it is a good idea or not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Indeed, without looking at the details of the software in question (or without asking the people that initially set up the software), I would not necessarily assume that: a) The software necessarily gave a discrete setting for whether deleting a thread is possible b) If the parameter was available, that a "deliberate choice" was actually made when the software was installed as opposed to an arbitrary decision or perhaps even the "default" setting was chosen
Since I have a friend who owns and runs another UBB board, I can confidently say that you are wrong on both assumptions.
posted
I am keenly interested in the Ethics of Aspiration, particularly in how often "ambitious" is used as a synonym for "evil."
Perhaps it is too childish an example, but the whole think about Slytherin being the house of Ambition, and all dark wizards came from there is puzzling. I mean, you'd think they'd have shut it down at a certain point, would you not? Of course ambition is a good trait when tempered with purpose.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that there are many different ways to participate in a forum, and that people often participate in more than one way.
Some ways are funny, some friendly, some supportive, some looking for support.
One way is to get into deep conversations where you can bounce your ideas and knowledge off of other peoples ideas and knowledge, sharpen your own thoughts and the way you articulate them, learn new things. And in the process of bouncing, sharpening and articulating, present these ideas, thoughts, and research to the small world of the forum and to the larger world.
This takes some effort.
I think that people are less likely to go to the trouble of doing this if they are concerned that this articulation could be "vanished" on a whim.
For people like me who are intrigued and attracted by this kind of participation, some reassurance that threads won't be deleted is helpful.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is it about being the first one to post in a thread that makes giving that person the right to delete others' posts more acceptable than letting any poster delete another's posts?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just because thread deletion is not divisive to you doesn't mean it's not divisive.
...to people who think thread deletion is divisive.
Also, I approve of the irony of the ongoing existence of this thread.
If someone were to delete it, it would be tragically ironic.
However, its power is not diminished in continuing to exist in simple irony. This is perhaps the Monument of Irony I've longed for here on Hatrack.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is it about being the first one to post in a thread that makes giving that person the right to delete others' posts more acceptable than letting any poster delete another's posts?
I don't know that I find it acceptable-- I just don't think it's a big deal. It's like throwing banana peels out into the woods behind your house.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is it about being the first one to post in a thread that makes giving that person the right to delete others' posts more acceptable than letting any poster delete another's posts?
that's exactly the main problem i have with deleting threads. We don't allow posters to delete individual posts made by someone else. And people here always go on about how threads get derailed all the time and it's something we can't help, so a thread may venture into territories completely unintended by the original poster. So why is it okay for that person to delete every single post made? Starting a conversation gives you the right to not only end it, but wipe it out of existence?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is it about being the first one to post in a thread that makes giving that person the right to delete others' posts more acceptable than letting any poster delete another's posts?
Well, their name goes by the thread title, and they choose the thread title. Having something in your name apparently means quite a bit to some people I've heard of.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
but like i said originally, i think irami's posts that led the puffy deleting his thread were completely unnecessary in that thread, and belonged in their own thread(i have nothing against the posts themselves, it's an interesting topic).
It'd be like me starting a thread having to do with a particular movie called "flimflam" and someone else coming in and making an indepth post about a rocking chair company called "flimflam" looking for a discussion about the relative merits of rocking chairs.
and yes, i also see the irony in what's going on with irami's thread now, but I think this was kind of unavoidable.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Starting a conversation gives you the right to not only end it, but wipe it out of existence?
I've yet to see the thread that ended because the thread starter said so. We don't have the ability to lock threads, at least that I was aware of.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've yet to see the thread that ended because the thread starter said so. We don't have the ability to lock threads, at least that I was aware of.
I meant that by deleting a thread, you not only wipe it out of existence, but effectively end the conversation as well.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've yet to see the thread that ended because the thread starter said so. We don't have the ability to lock threads, at least that I was aware of.
No, but we can petition the mods to lock a thread if you feel it's necessary and you don't even have to be the topic starter to do that. Anybody can whistle a post and request PJ look into the thread and lock it if necessary.
I have to say, as long as we have the right to edit our posts, so we can take out anything we say that we regret later (with explanations, preferably for the others following the conversation) I would have no problem with our ability to delete posts removed. I certainly don't have a problem with taking away the ability to delete threads.
This may be a bit hypocritical, because I have deleted a thread once, but I did give warning and explain why - it was because some personal information that was not mine to share was mentioned by me, in the heat of the moment without thinking it through, and someone else quoted me so I couldn't remove it just by editing my own posts. I had let something slip I shouldn't, and I needed to get rid of it. I warned everyone involved, and started another thread explaining why the deletion was necessary.
So, I have deleted threads before - just that one time, I believe - but if I knew the option to get a mod to delete or lock it and edit the problem posts existed, I would be okay with losing that ability, even as someone who has availed herself of it before.
All Hatrack posters can be assured that I will never delete a thread I start unless such a situation occurs again and I must act to protect the privacy of someone else. I pledge in such an instance, to attempt to have the mods solve the problem first before resorting to deletion and to always explain why I delete a thread and to apologize to the posters involved.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will note that Tom is best known for flinging zippy one-liners into complicated discussions - he chooses not to put the kind of effort into posting here that some other people do.
You greatly underestimate the work that goes into flinging zippy one-liners into complicated discussions. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You greatly underestimate the work that goes into flinging zippy one-liners into complicated discussions.
Not really. Zippy one-liners are what usually occur to me before I hit reply. I often discard them in order to post something substantive.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For one perfect moment of zen-- like when, in the Matrix, the camera pans around Trinity as she jumps in the air and prepares to kick the bad guys-- the two Deletion Threads are aligned.
Let us savor this moment of...somethingness.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, from your link, I found this interesting:
quote:A meaningful life is a creative one, and what falls short of this lacks meaning, to whatever extent.
What bothers me here is that his definition of "creative" is so necessarily narrow. He explicitly disqualifies things that may be personally meaningful -- like someone laboring to build the biggest ball of string in the world -- from creative effort, as well as any "productive" effort. By "creation," here Taylor means only the creation of uniquely personal art; it must express its creator, even if no audience is there to appreciate it.
To my mind, that makes his definition of a meaningful life not only solipsistic but narcissistic; a "meaningful" life to Mr. Taylor is one in which a person's work is not only personally meaningful but ultimately expressive of that individual's personality -- which means that "meaningful," by his definition, becomes synonymous with "individual."
The problem here is that creating unique art or even personally-expressive craftwork is, in many societies and in many places, a luxury made impossible for the majority by the requirements of civilized society. While I think you can make a few powerful social arguments based on this conclusion, it also fails to speak to the personal experiences of those who would disagree; it's clearly not a universal truth as much as it is an argument for a social agenda.
----------
quote:Zippy one-liners are what usually occur to me before I hit reply. I often discard them in order to post something substantive.
Whereas I have the exact opposite reaction. Frequently, I find myself wanting to post something "substantive," but wind up deleting the first effort and ruthlessly paring until a zippy one-liner is what remains. If you're naturally blithe and funny and repress this side in order to seem "substantive," and I'm naturally "substantive" but repress it in order to seem remotely tolerable, that would certainly explain the difference in our respective valuations.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: rivka: What assumptions did I make?
The ones you labeled "a" and "b."
The software does allow the admin to choose whether posts (and therefore threads) can be deleted or not. And "not" is the default (or at least it was a couple of versions of the software back).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
