quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: As to the third, I don't believe that you understand how divisive I find it to be. You "hope that ability will not be taken away."
*shrug* I obviously have no way to prove how much I dislike most thread deletions. I still don't want the ability taken away.
The analogy to our positions on abortion is almost amusing.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I have repeatedly said, I am going to judge those who don't sign as I already do. The problem is that there are many people - not Icarus, MPH, you, and many others - who I have no information concerning this issue. I have often not posted things because I fear deletion when the thread has been posted by an unknown person. That won't change; this thread creates an opportunity to gain information more quickly.
I appreciate your personal statement of non-judgment.
I realize hindsight is 20-20. However perhaps a poll asking people for their opinions on thread deletion would have accomplished your informational goal, more quickly in a less divisive manner, than a "pledge"?
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: As to the third, I don't believe that you understand how divisive I find it to be. You "hope that ability will not be taken away."
I don't believe you understand how divisive some of us find this pledge.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess the issue I'm having with the idea of keeping a list is that it is a public and persistent list. There is no possibility of forgive and forget, letting bygones be bygones, or any such cliches.
Sure there is. In fact, absent my idea, there is no reliable way for a former thread deleter to regain trust. In contrast, if anyone who has deleted threads takes this pledge, I will treat them as if they will not delete threads.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't believe you understand how divisive some of us find this pledge.
Yeah, I know - you think it "seems like a way to breed mistrust."
I think it seems like a way to overcome the mistrust created by thread deletion.
AJ wants me acknowledge "that this could be used out of spite to create divsiveness would be a start." I've asked for additional clarification on how ("What will referring back to this thread do to support a claim that someone is a known thread deleter?"), and haven't gotten it yet. Absent that, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to acknowledge or how it can be used out of spite.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I think it's a problem of paradigms. The clarification you are asking for, is so obvious and funamental to me (and I think others) that I'm having a problem putting it into words.
Finger-pointing back to this thread could be come a source of nyah, nyah holier-than-thou snobbery quite easily. It could also be used for scorn and ridicule, of people who are ok with judicious thread deletion like CT, on "do no harm" grounds.
I know that CT's position is much more complex than that and I'm reducing it to a cairacture of the original depth of thought she put in.
There are other people who are *not* ok with having their words recorded for posterity that delete posts with far more frequency than Javert Hugo or CT. And they would suffer far more personal distress by having their words remain (even if it is on a knitting thread) than quitely deleting their own posts, although they probably wouldn't delete a thread because they rarely start them. But even when they have something valuable to say, they wouldn't ever start a thread if they didn't have the option to delete it if they felt they drew too much attention to themselves.
I feel that this thread can be used to perpetuate a "blame game" mentality which again does more harm than good.
It may also be the tone of the pledge. Rather than saying "never X" in the negative, to me it is is more profitable to have a positive request for respectful discussion and what respectful considerate discussion entails. To say "never X" does imply harsh judgement against those who do X (unless we read your further personal non-judgement disclaimers and waivers) But those disclaimers and waivers to mitigate possible divisiveness were not in your original pledge.
posted
Dag, I think you're an intelligent member here, but this is definitely out of character for you.
This thread seems akin to schoolyard banter, as if you're a little boy drawing a line in the sand saying, "This is the cool side of the line, all the cool people(people against thread deletion) on this side, everybody else stay over there! *blows raspberry*"
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I finally know what "mayfly" means! I'm happy now.
I once deleted a thread, but it was because I double-posted accidentally due to lag or something. In all honesty, I was under the impression that deleting would have been preferable to leaving identical posts. Was I wrong?
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: In fact, absent my idea, there is no reliable way for a former thread deleter to regain trust.
I strongly disagree. One regains trust by acting in good faith, not by taking a pledge of any sort. Once someone has acted in bad faith, a pledge is only an attempt to put a superficial bandaid on the situation and is in no way reliable.
Actions speak louder than pledges or apologies. The only way to regain trust is to earn it via trustworthy actions over time.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe how ridiculous some people are being towards Dagonee. The more scorn is heaped upon him, the better I like him.
I've never been a fan of a forum-poster before, and I've been on forums and usenet since 1994. But I'm a Dagonee fan now.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said...if it needs to be deleted for the health of the forum, let the moderator make that decision. Or let thread-starters lock threads temporarily. Or force a 24 waiting period with the thread marked so people can save things or complete the discussion they were having.
I think it's pretty clear that the way things are right now isn't working to the satisfaction of pretty much everyone. Most of us don't like deleting threads, so why exactly is everyone so angry?
It's not even about not trusting people to do the right thing. Some people might not even realize the impact that deleting a thread has, and do so without knowledge of how it might hurt people -- and regret it later. Heck, why not put up a warning message when someone goes to delete the first post in the thread that deleting threads is generally frowned upon by the community? If we're going to allow something that makes most people mad, shouldn't we at least warn those who do it that there will be a backlash?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm specifically pledging to delete any thread I feel like deleting, as well as editing any post I want to edit. So I'm putting everyone on notice of that fact. Far from thinking this is a bad thing, I think it's great. Like all powers, it can be used for good or for ill. I like to think I know how to use it for good. I pledge to do that, if that makes anyone feel better.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I think it's pretty clear that the way things are right now isn't working to the satisfaction of pretty much everyone.
I don't believe this to be true. I don't think I'm the only one (in fact, I know that I am not) who is in favor of keeping the status quo. And without polling all active Hatrack posters, I don't know how one would even make a determination as to the feelings of "pretty much everyone."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This thread seems akin to schoolyard banter, as if you're a little boy drawing a line in the sand saying, "This is the cool side of the line, all the cool people(people against thread deletion) on this side, everybody else stay over there! *blows raspberry*"
I think that says more about you than me.
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: No, you weren't wrong. That's a pretty clear exception.
There are no exceptions. Not even for the health of the forum.
This is a clear mechanism to allow deletion of duplicate threads:
quote:I hereby agree not to delete threads on Hatrack River to which others have responded
If someone has responded to a duplicate thread, it shouldn't be deleted, because another's post will still be lost.
quote:It may also be the tone of the pledge. Rather than saying "never X" in the negative, to me it is is more profitable to have a positive request for respectful discussion and what respectful considerate discussion entails. To say "never X" does imply harsh judgement against those who do X (unless we read your further personal non-judgement disclaimers and waivers) But those disclaimers and waivers to mitigate possible divisiveness were not in your original pledge.
We've had those discussions. What I'm asking for now is that people who agree to not exercise this power identify themselves. All the other mechanisms for identifying people who are unlikely to delete a thread are still available.
quote:Once someone has acted in bad faith, a pledge is only an attempt to put a superficial bandaid on the situation and is in no way reliable.
A former thread deleter is not someone who has necessarily acted in bad faith.
quote:Finger-pointing back to this thread could be come a source of nyah, nyah holier-than-thou snobbery quite easily. It could also be used for scorn and ridicule, of people who are ok with judicious thread deletion like CT, on "do no harm" grounds.
Sure it could. So one could call those people on their divisive behavior, rather than buying the trouble now.
CT has been very up front about her desire to delete threads. I have taken this into account in the way I respond to her threads. I don't consider that divisive on either of our parts.
quote:There are other people who are *not* ok with having their words recorded for posterity that delete posts with far more frequency than Javert Hugo or CT. And they would suffer far more personal distress by having their words remain (even if it is on a knitting thread) than quitely deleting their own posts, although they probably wouldn't delete a thread because they rarely start them. But even when they have something valuable to say, they wouldn't ever start a thread if they didn't have the option to delete it if they felt they drew too much attention to themselves.
What does this pledge have to do with people deleting their own posts? "Nothing in this pledge shall restrict my right to edit posts I have made." That includes removing posts entirely, as indicated by "I will delete the text in the edit box rather than delete the post."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess the issue I'm having with the idea of keeping a list is that it is a public and persistent list. There is no possibility of forgive and forget, letting bygones be bygones, or any such cliches.
Sure there is. In fact, absent my idea, there is no reliable way for a former thread deleter to regain trust. In contrast, if anyone who has deleted threads takes this pledge, I will treat them as if they will not delete threads.
And you don't see this as coercive?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: CT has been very up front about her desire to delete threads. I have taken this into account in the way I respond to her threads. I don't consider that divisive on either of our parts.
(As a quite tangential point of clarification, I don't actively desire to delete threads. I do actively desire to avoid hurting or upsetting my friends, and in the remote chance I would delete again, I want to avoid having misled people.
I can't guarantee that I wouldn't delete a thread again -- I don't expect to, but I recall a thread in which someone posted very personal information about someone else (hmmm, the poster was from a different forum, I think, and it was one of Belle's (?)) threads), and that one I would have deleted without qualm if PJ weren't immediately available.
I also would have deleted the thread about "what is porn?" (or something like) -- as I noted clearly in the title and in the first post -- were PJ not immediately available and if someone had linked to an explicit site not fit for minors, for example. I didn't realize until recently how hard this is on some people, but I still want (regretfully) to retain the power (if offered) to make that (hopefully rare, if ver) choice, and I want to protect others while retaining that power. I guess I feel the responsibility to delete if I can and I think I should, and I also don't want to mislead others about that.
I'm glad you still post in my threads, Dagonee. (Wait ... hmmm, I have been posting in -other- people's threads, not any of mine, so I don't know if you do. Regardless, should you and I choose to talk about something, let's make sure you start the thread, not me.))
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like I said...if it needs to be deleted for the health of the forum, let the moderator make that decision.
If I can do something that I think will help the health of the forum, I'm going to do it, and not pass the buck to the moderator.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Papa Janitor is not around much of the time for immediate intervention, and sometimes the issue does come with immediacy. (I am glad he is not around all the time, as that would make me frankly worry for him.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if I ever created threads (I think I might have started 2 in the 4+ years I've been here) I wouldn't take this pledge. Yeah, I'm against thread deletion in most circumstances, but the pledge seriously smacks of chastity pledges, although at a different point on the spectrum. I know chastity pledges have been brought up before, but I'm combining things that haven't been thus far in the thread to my knowledge.
I know Dag specifically has said that he wouldn't automatically not post in a thread started by someone who didn't make the pledge, but the mere existence gives others the opportunity. It's like people who signed a chastity pledge refusing to date someone who hasn't signed it, regardless of their actual behavior, or those who automatically assume someone behaves "sinfully" because they refuse. It allows for the elimination of mental consideration. It is very much drawing a line in the sand, easily transformed into a with us or against us mentality. And that doesn't work for me.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: And you don't see this as coercive?
Am I using force, intimidation, or authority? Am I somehow abrogating individual desire or will?
No, I'm not. You have a strange definition of "coercive."
quote:I know Dag specifically has said that he wouldn't automatically not post in a thread started by someone who didn't make the pledge, but the mere existence gives others the opportunity.
Even though I disagree with that as a feasible way to make the judgment, I don't see that as a reason to not do this. Those types of judgments are already made based on less complete information.
quote:Originally posted by Nick:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I think that says more about you than me.
I fail to see how.
Because you are the one labeling a group self-identifying by a characteristic that is important to them as being the "cool" people.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back to the coercion idea: if what I've proposed in this thread is coercive, then the posts of most people who oppose it have been coercive.
Frankly, a definition like that makes the word seem useless to me. But as long as people are being consistent about applying it, I guess I don't have any real problem with it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The scare quotes were there for a reason. You have designated a group self-identifying by an important characteristic as bad somehow.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Dag, I'm saying you're labeling that self-identifying group the "cool" people by starting this pledge.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, then we simply have an improvable difference in opinion since we can't read minds, because I clearly see the writing on the wall. I'm not trying to personally attack you Dagonee, I don't think you're juvenile, I think this pledge is.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nick, you are inferring that going on record as agreeing to not delete threads is somehow more socially advantageous than not. I don't think this is the case.
I see it sort of like those "safe house" signs people used to put in their windows so neighborhood kids would know that they could go to that house if their parents weren't home or whatever. I don't know if people do that anymore. It wasn't any kind of a stigma to not have a sign, it didn't mean that other houses were dangerous, it just meant that certain people had promised to be available and so forth.
No stigma is attached to not agreeing as far as I can tell. Why is this such a big deal?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: And you don't see this as coercive?
Am I using force, intimidation, or authority? Am I somehow abrogating individual desire or will?
Oh, forget it. You'd rather nitpick because I didn't consult a dictionary first than address the idea.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a big deal. I'm not personally attacking him, just this one idea. He made it a little personal. Rather than explaining his thread isn't what I said it was, he went straight on to "that says more about you".
I'm not saying agreeing not to delete threads is juvenile, I'm saying drawing a definitive line between those who have pledged and those who haven't in list form is.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I have ever deleted a thread, and I dislike it when someone else does most of the time.
However, I don't think that I would be willing to never do so, nor do I think that the option should be removed.
I have no problem with BOTH of those facts being considered when someone forms an opinion of me and my posting style. If it is the ONLY factor considered though, then it is the judging person's loss. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There seems to be am implied "or else" in the statement, and that could be taken as coercive in nature.
What is this "or else"?
There's an implied "or else" in every thread started by a person who reserves the right to delete it. That's an "or else" backed up by the actual ability to forcibly remove others' posts.
What, exactly, is the or else associated with people taking this pledge?
Three of the highest post-count people vocally lined up against this idea. There's a significant faction of people who strongly oppose thread deletion who will not take the pledge. It's not as if I'm so popular that I'm going to intimidate people into not agreeing with me
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just realized that Dagonee can delete this thread, and remake it so that he's still on the pledge list.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
But will you use the power for Good or Evil? And will that involve doing something, or just your own basic nature?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also found a way that all the Commies can still sign the pledge. Go ahead and pledge not to delete threads, but then just break the pledge whenever you like.
Better, if you feel like you would like to delete a post but don't want to break the pledge, just edit all your posts to be advertising spam so PJ locks it for you, and you make a little cash as a bonus.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just as a side note and for the awareness factor, there have been times when threads have been deleted by mods/owners of the forum (not PJ for the specific threads that I'm aware of) with no notice to the thread starter or anyone who participated in those threads.
I've had at least one, possibly more, threads that were deleted. I was told after the fact, after I enquired about what happened to the threads, that it was because later posts crossed the line into bad taste, or some such thing. The person who did the deleting didn't clean up offending posts, but instead deleted the thread.
Just so you know, it can and does happen. Don't know how frequently, though...
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yep. Do you think that neither Paul nor I realize this?
No. I think, however, that you're trying hard to make the argument that this specific behavior is "bad" behavior, and to deliberately ostracize those who disagree.
quote: In fact, absent my idea, there is no reliable way for a former thread deleter to regain trust.
I'm actually more concerned with the assertion that a "former thread deleter" deserves distrust. Frankly, people we don't trust to post here shouldn't be welcome here; I don't see why maintaining a list of people we permit to stay around but don't trust enough to converse with is particularly valuable to the community.
----------
quote:I obviously have no way to prove how much I dislike most thread deletions. I still don't want the ability taken away.
For my part, Rivka, I would prefer that the ability be taken away than to require that members of the forum maintain a public list of individuals meeting their unique criteria for trustworthiness.
---------
quote: I see it sort of like those "safe house" signs people used to put in their windows so neighborhood kids would know that they could go to that house if their parents weren't home or whatever. I don't know if people do that anymore. It wasn't any kind of a stigma to not have a sign, it didn't mean that other houses were dangerous...
You don't think it's insulting to assert that the threads of non-signatory posters might not be "safe?"
---------
quote:What is the idea? That he's trying to change people's behavior?
No, Icky. It's one thing to try to change people's behavior by making an impassioned argument one way or another; that happens all the time, and I don't consider it "coercive." Can you understand why I feel a list like this is coercive in a way that saying "I personally dislike thread deletion" is not?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: For my part, Rivka, I would prefer that the ability be taken away than to require that members of the forum maintain a public list of individuals meeting their unique criteria for trustworthiness.
*blink* I'm glad no one is suggesting those are the options. I dislike both quite intensely.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
