I kind of doubt most people are going to be checking this thread everytime they want to post in a discussion. I suppose everyone can copy and paste the pledge in the beginning of their threads so that everyone can know that the ensuing discussion is deletion-safe. But that would be a bit, um, ridiculous.
quote:Just because thread deletion is not divisive to you doesn't mean it's not divisive.
Who is this in response to? Because it sure wasn't at all what Rivka said.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
I agree with this.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I generally find thread deletion irritating if the topic is recent or is significant enough that it might be searched for or resurrected at some point. I actually don't have a problem with creating a thread where people can say whether they might delete a thread. However, I don't think it will be particularly effective since I doubt that people are going to come here and check this thread before deciding whether to post in someone's thread.
Honestly, I'd prefer that the ability to delete threads be removed or restricted. If it's really important to delete something, you still have the option of asking the moderator. Until then, if you put a lot of effort into a post, you might think about saving it elsewhere.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The mistrust has already been bred, Jon Boy.
I'm afraid that this could breed mistrust toward people like me who, I believe, have not previously bred any mistrust regarding thread deletion.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which is why I decided to go in the opposite direction.
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. 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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
This is pretty much how I feel about the subject (except I would have BOLDED and CAPITALIZED the word hate and maybe thrown in some excessive punctuation). I would pledge (and just might anyway) if I were in danger of ever starting a thread, but that's beyond unlikely.
But it IS about trust and mistrust. I DO trust Icarus not to do such a thing -- and I very much do not trust several other people who I'm almost (but not quite) irritated enough to name. It's behavior that I consider untrustworthy and dishonest.
The usual caveats of extenuating circumstances, blah blah.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel that creating a list of so-called "pledge-breakers" will be deleterious to the community.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think people deleting their threads that other people put a lot of thought and effort into is deleterious to the community.
This isn't a question of what's absolutely right versus what is absolutely wrong, but rather competing rights and wrongs.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is specifically not about Puffy. And, despite your repeated attempts to make it so, it is not about you.
Well, it certainly can't be about you, or your stated agenda. I mean, that's what you're arguing, that a thread starter shouldn't have any special ownership of a thread.
*Throws candy at the rabble*
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Not as deleterious as creating a list of "outcasts" - which is what a list of pledge-breakers would essentially do.
It's just a forum, guys. Yes, it's upsetting when threads are deleted, but it's not worth castigating people about it.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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:Shall we discuss peer pressure and group mentalities?
Like the peer pressure and group mentalities being attempted by you (in comparing this to the poster child for censorship), Tom and Scott (in their dismissiveness and, in Tom's case, mocking), and pooka (in her "You're being so MEAN!") posts?
I hope that the thread will change behavior. That's not coercive.
quote:If it's not meant to be coercive, why include "Posters who have violated the pledge:"?
Because this thread is designed to provide information. If someone has violated the pledge, the information is no longer accurate. The person who takes the pledge knows that the information will be corrected in this manner.
I haven't (and won't) post a list of those who delete threads. Those who break a pledge they made - and didn't have to make to participate here - knowing this is the consequence are not being coerced. The inaccuracy of the information the thread is designed to convey is being corrected.
quote:Do you really not see the potential for this to become a litmus test for posters?
Do you really think people should not have access to the knowledge concerning whether a thread starter will delete their words?
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.
Fine. There's no particular need for you to take the pledge if you feel that way.
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.
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: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.
Moreover, the fact that this might actually discourage thread deletion is not a negative to me.
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*
Which is why I haven't ordered anyone to do anything or deleted the thread. I made a request. When it was ignored, I replied to the attacks made on my idea.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's only one way to correct this controversy: delete the thread. Then we can all pretend it didn't happen!
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
The difference being that, according to the current rules of this community, deleting threads is allowed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Moreover, the fact that this might actually discourage thread deletion is not a negative to me.
Ah Dag, this is where you lost me. I get that's a welcome 'side effect.'
Given the inescapable difficulty of maintaining the list and keeping the thread on the front page, I wonder if the side effect wasn't intent.
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.
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
posted
We have threads every now and then about how even though the whistle exists, only a member of the SS would use it. I remember being very surprised by this the first time it was discussed. Just because something is possible on the forum does not mean it is endorsed by the community "rules".
I think all that's going on here is a normal self-regulating event, that vultures like me find particularly exciting. It's almost as good as a mafia game.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not as deleterious as creating a list of "outcasts" - which is what a list of pledge-breakers would essentially do.
I'm not sure how making people aware of others past behavior so they can make informed decisions about it is this terrible thing.
I don't want to spend a lot of time and effort writing posts in threads that the starter is going to delete. I like being aware that a person I'm interacting with is apt to delete her posts or threads if she turns out looking poorly. I like knowing whether people I'm interacting with actually respect what I have to say.
Right now, I keep track of these people by using my memory. I also try to make a point of noting it when people do this so that other people are also aware that they do this.
They can make their own decisions based on this information. Many people have said they don't care, which is fine. Other people do.
If a lot of people treat people who delete threads differently because they are aware of their behavior, I'm not the one creating the division. They are, by their behavior of deleting threads.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
BTW, the unmakings committed by deleting threads are seldom ineffectual. They generally have a significant effect.
******
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've already said that I think deleting threads can be (but isn't always) bad. I don't like the pledge idea. My dislike of the idea isn't personal against Dag.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I hope that the thread will change behavior. That's not coercive.
Almost by definition.
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?
In the form of a list? No, I don't. In the form of acquired experience? Sure.
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.
Or you could just do the latter for everyone.
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.
But what you seem not to see is that I agree with Tom. It's coercion precisely because it's not nearly as voluntary as you are claiming.
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.
Something we can agree on.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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."
I think you are using the wrong tactics in this matter, Dag.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Ack, I think that's illegal, man.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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."
It is an issue when someone (you, specifically) claimed that the effect was greater than the effect of something else.
I'm frankly amazed that people have a problem with other people agreeing not to exercise a particular privilege/power/right/freedom/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.
I don't like thread deletions. I base my posting behavior on my expectation that a thread will be deleted. If people voluntarily refrain from doing so and let me know that in advance, I can make more accurate decisions.
If thread deletion is OK, then I'm not exerting coercion by calling attention to those who promise not to do it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
