quote:In the form of a list? No, I don't. In the form of acquired experience? Sure.
That acquired experience isn't possible without someone calling attention to the deletion of the thread.
Why is there a significant difference?
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Porcelain Girl speaks for me.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| 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.
I don't. I think that one of the reasons that the chastity pledges don't work is that they are often taken in response to peer pressure, but that peer pressure is greatly diminished when they either follow through with or break the pledge, because sexual activity is not nearly as public as the pledgetaking was.
In other words, I think that the chastity pledges are not analogous to Dag's pledge here, because here any peer pressure is likely be just as strong if not stronger when it comes to actually deleting threads in comparison to taking the pledge.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, TL, your last post was a lie. Here's the original exchange:
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.
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.
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.
I thought it was a joke. *adjusts Mucus' humorometer*
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Do you really not see the potential for this to become a litmus test for posters?
It already is.
This merely lists off the people using it as such. I probably would have handled my "thread deletion incident" (and I feel absolutely silly referring to it in that way) much better had I known in advance who I was going to piss off.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| 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.
I thought it was a joke. *adjusts Mucus' humorometer*
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.)
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.
I can't make enough sense out of this to respond to it.
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.
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 the way you did, you sort of proved her point.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe I have updated everyone who has requested to be on the list through Bokonon. If I missed you, please let me know.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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
I said I'd take it, but it was sort of ambiguous. My first post started with "Sure" which was to the pledge idea.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:in order to continually call me a liar, requires the application of motive, interpretation, and re-interpretation.
Motive may be inferred from behavior. Your behavior indicates no desire to be accurate about this. Your repeated insistence on mischaracterizing that exchange provides further evidence of your bad motive. You've had ample opportunity to correct your mistake. You haven't done so. Your interpretation of that exchange is not reasonable. Ergo my conclusion that you are lying.
You might actually just be unreasonable or lacking in reading comprehension, but you don't seem to demonstrate such lack in other contexts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Alas, I'm not okay with thread deletion, but I have to tolerate it here. We can appreciate each other's burdens of non-okayness.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly the opposite. It is your behavior that indicates no desire to be accurae about this. It is you who repeatedly insists on mischaracterizing what has been said.
The only benefit of doing so is to call me a liar. It is getting old, and I think you are dangerously close to violating the TOS.
What I said was not a lie. What I said was true. It can only be interpreted as dishonest if you apply what was said through the lens of a false assumption of my motive.
You believe that I am lying because you think that I meant the statement to be applied in a certain way to the conversation at-hand. That presupposition, that assumption of motive on my part, is where you have gone wrong.
I did not mean it in any other way than literal: That you responded, using the words I quoted, to an individual who did not take your pledge.
You can choose to either accept that I meant, literally, what I said. Or you can continue to apply the false assumption of my supposed "real" meaning, and believe that I am a liar.
If you were dealing in good faith, you would choose option A.
Beyond that, I don't know what else to say.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
It is not dishonest. I reached a conclusion. I found what you said to be shocking; it didn't upset me, but I had to read it several times just to be sure I wasn't imagining things. 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. 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.
Perhaps you can clarify that for me, but that is what I was reacting to.
It wasn't the context of that sentence that I was using to support my post, it was the idea that someone would say that no matter the context to someone else. Because to me, it seems so dismissive to say that.
Take that sentence and replace "being able to delete threads" with anything else, and you'll see my point.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I pledge that the next time someone hi-jacks a thread without rhyme or reason, and the thread-starter deletes said thread out of frustration, I won't berate, dog-pile, or pooh-pooh them.
Because brother, I've been there.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know where else to put this, but it is relevant (and Dagonee, I won't fill your thread with things you might find irrelevant -- I promise, I'll limit it to this one post):
Like Icarus and Javert Hugo, I have all desire to bring as little harm into the world as possible, including malicious or capricious deletions of threads (especially when some have spent so much time and energy into really remarkable posts). I also have no intention to delete any future threads at this time. However, I have other reservations about signing a pledge to this effect (in accordance with Tom Davidson's concerns).
I think the most reasonable thing for me to do is to just put a warning at the beginning of any thread I create (which isn't many, actually) that I might delete it, although I don't expect to do so. I've done that off and on in the past, and it seems the best way I can figure out to address the concerns of my friends, but yet still be clear about my own motivations.
I'm fine with you putting that on the list, Dagonee. There will be a warning in my individual threads, but I'm okay with being noted as a potentially problematic poster in the official tally as well.
---
Edited to note: This would mean I would never actually violate the pledge anyway, as I'd never be able to violate it (given I always had made the notation in the beginning, as is a specific exception at the start of the pledge). But it might be useful information to someone, even if I am neither a violator nor a pledger.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
Please. your longish posts on the Church are ones I actively seek, even when we disagree, and are definitely worth reading.
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.
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: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.
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: People who think those who don't want to participate could just not participate: Dagonee
Sorry man, posting a thread on Hatrack is inviting participation, though not always in the way you expect. It's one of the things that keeps this place from becoming too stale.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you have not explicitly said, Dag, is whether you would intend to boycott serious posts on non-signers' threads. If that IS your intention, I don't see how you can reasonably claim that such a list is non-coercive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you have not explicitly said, Dag, is whether you would intend to boycott serious posts on non-signers' threads. If that IS your intention, I don't see how you can reasonably claim that such a list is non-coercive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
