quote:Jon Boy was so offended by the fact that I actually wanted to apply the meaning of "coerce" to this issue that he refused to answer.
I can understand why. You're insisting on a very specific definition of "coerce," whereas Jon Boy -- and I -- are using the more common (and connotative) one. The whole problem, from my perspective, is that you appear completely insensitive to the connotative value of what you're trying to do, here.
Agreed. Also, I wasn't offended—just seriously annoyed. It feels like you're being willfully ignorant about this, Dagonee. So here we go:
1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
Sure, you haven't used threats or intimidation (unless saying that someone can never gain forgiveness except through your pledge could be considered such), but it is very clearly pressure.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the belief that there is never, ever, a single circumstance under which anyone's feelings, relationships, or personal issues could perhaps be a reason to delete something I have written is, to me, arrogant. And disrespectful.
I'm not sure who you think made a statement like this. It is certainly not me, as I have specifically said that there were legitimate cases for thread deletion. Also, as has been noted, there is other recourses in legitimate situations, such as appealing to the moderator.
quote:Believe it or not, thread deleters do this too. Thread deleters do not inherently see posts as valueless.
I don't know who talked about posts having the power to effect people or not.
I was talking about respecting people's effort and words, which seems very different to me from what you are talking about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the belief that there is never, ever, a single circumstance under which anyone's feelings, relationships, or personal issues could perhaps be a reason to delete something I have written is, to me, arrogant. And disrespectful.
But no one has said never, ever. You quoted the words: "I think it is important in any community for people to respect the words and efforts of the people in it. Deleting them without them having any recourse is, to me, disrespectful."
quote:In reality, at it's core, this thread is a bunch of sneeches coming forward to show their stars so they know who can't go the beach parties.
Bull. That statement is utter crap.
Edit: that was harsh, but I don't know how to respond to this. It strikes me as an attempt to keep people from expressing their preferences for fear of hurting other's feelings - with no reciprocal requirement being made for those with opposing preferences. Again, if Jon Boy's "coercion" doesn't apply to this, I don't see how it's being used consistently.
quote:But if somebody started a thread called, "Pledge to never quote law articles or case summaries in threads," no matter how much they talked about how it was just a list "for thier information," or about how it "Wasn't meant to exclude anybody," you would always feel, in your heart, it was "A list of people who don't like Dagonee's posting style."
First, I don't think it's a secret that I don't like thread deletions. Second, there's nothing wrong with making a list of people who don't like thread deletions. Third, I wouldn't assume that everyone who didn't sign it LIKED my posting style, so I wouldn't consider it to be such a list. I might assume that everyone on the list didn't like that aspect of my style. I would survive, and I wouldn't feel excluded, even as I argued that banning such sources means being unable to comprehensively discuss certain issues.
quote:Like...? Are you more likely to post a well-researched article on a thread started by "Flying Dracula Hair" than you were before?
If he posts a thread of interest to me, I would be willing to post a long response much earlier in the thread than I would otherwise.
quote:The sort of ironic thing to me is that a list of thread deleters, though I think people would object to it more vehemently, is actually both much more useful and less...bad (in my opinion and not really the right word) than what Dag is proposing.
Yep. I considered this far less confrontation than a public list of known thread deleters, because the pledge is opt-in rather than tattle-tales.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:unless saying that someone can never gain forgiveness except through your pledge could be considered such
I didn't say that. I said "absent my idea, there is no reliable way for a former thread deleter to regain trust."
quote:Sure, you haven't used threats or intimidation (unless saying that someone can never gain forgiveness except through your pledge could be considered such), but it is very clearly pressure.
And I'm being pressured to drop this idea. And I said a long ways back that if you consider the posts in opposition to this idea to be coercion, then I have no real problem with the use of the word that way.
quote:It feels like you're being willfully ignorant about this, Dagonee.
This is how I feel about the claims that this is a police state, McCarthyism, and yes, even mere coercion as you stated. Not to mention the idea that we're the star-bellied sneeches.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it is important in any community for people to respect the words and efforts of the people in it. Deleting them without them having any recourse is, to me, disrespectful.
And the belief that there is never, ever, a single circumstance under which anyone's feelings, relationships, or personal issues could perhaps be a reason to delete something I have written is, to me, arrogant. And disrespectful.
You can delete something you've written without deleting a thread. The only exception to this is if someone has quoted a post you would prefer to have disappear, in which case you can still appeal to the quoter and/or the moderator.
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: It is precisely the value in the words that leads some posters to feel that sometimes the words need to go. Just like you feel the words always carry enough weight that they must stay, thread deleters feel the words carry enough weight that they occasionally need to go.
I don't believe that the power to delete threads should be in the hands of users. That doesn't mean I think every thread should remain in existence and readily accessible in perpetuity.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I understand where Dag is coming from, as I have my own list of people I don't trust here at Hatrack. I won't post in their threads because they have proved over and over again their tendency to delete threads when the conversation doesn't go their way.
I also have a list, once again in my own head, or people I don't trust for other reasons. Some are completely combative, some are deliberate trolls...and there are one or two of them that just don't seem to have anything worth contributing most of the time.
My time is valuable.....at least to me. If I post in a thread that is a mayfly, I probably won't put as much effort into backing my claims up with links and references. When I post in a serious thread, I am pretty good about linking to references when necessary, even though I only type about 25-30 wpm. I am a lot more invested in those posts than in fluff or in casual conversation. It takes longer, and more effort, to make these types of posts.
I don't think there is anything wrong with having opinions about other posters, as long as those opinions are pretty much private. None of us have unlimited time, so some sort of prioritization HAS to happen if we post on Hatrack. If it didn't we would all just give up, as it would be too much. Even selecting threads based on your interest, something every single person does, is a form of this. But if we go public, specifically about a specific poster, we risk turning it into a pig pile against that person. At times that AMY be what is necessary, but most of the time it does more damage to the community here then it helps.
There are exceptions, of course....some posters are so disruptive on their own that it may be worth the risk just to take a stand against them and how they operate. Even in those situation, it is always a risk.
The problem is taking it your opinions public. A lot of what is natural in private becomes a problem when you try to apply it to a public setting, because quite frankly people act differently in groups than they do in one on one interactions. It is a fact, proved over and over again.....group behavior and individual behavior differ to a large degree.
I don't think Dags has any hidden motive for wanting to do this. His motive are as he has stated them from the beginning. But I disagree with his opinion of how divisive this topic/thread has the potential to be.
Regardless of his intention for this thread, I can see a time where it is referenced in a non-constructive manner in the near future.I believe it is almost inevitable that it will be used as ammo in flame wars and character assignation attempts.
I respect every Hatracker I have met IRL...thy have been very cool, and I am glad to have met them all, even those I don't agree with most of the time in serious threads. But EVERY Hatracker will have access to this thread, even the ones I mentioned above...the ones I already don't respect.
It could get real ugly, despite any good intentions.
So I don't support this thread, despite the fact that I have never deleted a non-mayfly thread myself. The risks outweigh the gain, IMO.
I already know who I don't trust. For the most part this thread won't change that.
posted
The problem with pledges for me is that, at a minimum, they cast suspicion on those that do not take them. There are a lot of reasons why one may not take a pledge and there is no easy way to know their reason other than the black and white of the pledge. Heck, I am relatively new here and I think I have only started 1 thread. The idea of deleting or not deleting a thread never crossed my mind until this discussion and as such I may have ignored the discussion altogether (and I probably would have if it had not grown so fast). I would not have had an opportunity to either take the pledge or give my reasons for not taking it. I am sure many posters here would fall into that category.
I am opposed to pledges on general principle. I do not believe they ever achieve they stated purpose but often achieve intended (unstated) or unintended purposes.
In this particular case we choose to participate here under a set of rules. Thread deletion is allowed which suggests to me the forum owner thinks it has some value. I am willing to abide by that decision whether I agree or not to be able to participate. I cannot foresee where I might delete a thread, I can only say that I hope I act responsibly toward the community and that community will have to trust or not whether that is true. I will not look at the list to make a decision on whether to post or not.
Thanks for this interesting discussion, Hatrack has been kind of dull recently.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I already know who I don't trust. For the most part this thread won't change that.
For me, this isn't about discovering who I can't trust, it is about finding people who I can trust regarding thread deletion that I might not have noticed otherwise.
It would be way too cumbersome for me to keep track of everyone who isn't on the list. There are zillions of posters and only a small handfull have listed themselves. My opinions (when I have formed them) are not going to change about people I already "know".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say the likelihood of thread deletion is not that high on my list of reasons not to trust someone here on Hatrack. But I guess if it had been an issue back in my heyday, I suppose it could have become one. It was more the case that I had active OCD and thought deleting was against the social rules of the forum.
I signed the pledge hoping to be the first to break it, but then I came to my senses as to how childish that would be. I also don't really have the heart to ask to be removed. I signed up in a moment of impulse, and I'll live with it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People can keep mental lists of their own. The only purpose of a public list is to try and make your mental list the definitive one.
I have mental lists - people I listen to, people who are funny, people who clearly have mental problems.
Making those lists public would be terribly destructive. You've said that isn't your intent, but it is a forseeable and predictable consequence of the plan. Plans are evaluated on what they actual produce and accomplish, not what we mean for them to accomplish.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're conflating lists of personal judgements with factual ones. There is a very big difference between making a public list of your impressions of peopel and maintaining a public record of thigns that occured.
And in Dag's case, he is suggesting neither.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is, sadly, the flip side of the popular threads that used to be ubiquitous. Just as I greatly disagreed with making lists of valued posters (because the hurt of being left off), that seems downright utopian compared to making lists of people unvalued posters (as per Squick's plan).
We are adults or becoming adults. Slam books are beneath us.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what I'd support? Adding three fields to the user profile database, tracking the number of times someone edited a post, the number of times someone deleted a post, and the number of times someone deleted a thread.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, there is a big difference between posting a list of people you don't like and keeping an accurate record of things that occurred.
So-and-so deleted a thread is information. I don't see how making it available to people whom it is relevant to is this terrible thing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know what I'd support? Adding three fields to the user profile database, tracking the number of times someone edited a post, the number of times someone deleted a post, and the number of times someone deleted a thread.
That's actually a great idea. I'd completely get behind that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish people would stop trying to coerce me NOT to be on this list. I keep feeling like there are people negatively judging me because I decided to take a stand on something I believe in.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know, it's just like we're living in Stalinist Russia, where standing up for your beliefs could get you shot, or if not that, people would at least make an absurd, Godwinesque comparison.
I don't know why people want to turn Hatrack into the USSR. It's much colder there for one thing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And how do you feel abuot keeping an accurate record of things that occurred, which, as far as I can tell, is what I, at least, am talking about?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless it is absolutely exhaustive (lists of everyone who uses a personal insult, lists of everyone uses bad grammar, lists of everyone who avoids a question, lists of everyone who answers a question with a question, lists of everyone who bumps dead threads, lists of everyone who makes dobies), then it is specifying one particular behavior (whose moral assessment is controversial) as more important than others, and its acolytes as more equal than others.
posted
So I can take a stand as much as I want, as long as I don't actually go on record as taking a stand?
Does it come down to accountability? People who are willing to be held accountable for their actions seem to be the same ones who find value in keeping threads around. The people who object to being held accountable for their actions regarding thread deleting are the same ones who want to reserve the right to delete threads whenever they feel like it.
I feel like there is an obvious connection that one could make.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no way to avoid accountability. There is no deleting memories. There is no way to hide who you truly are; it will out in spite of anyone's best efforts. To speak at all is to indict yourself. Accountability is inevitable.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless it is absolutely exhaustive (lists of everyone who uses a personal insult, lists of everyone uses bad grammar, lists of everyone who avoids a question, lists of everyone who answers a question with a question, lists of everyone who bumps dead threads, lists of everyone who makes dobies), then it is specifying one particular behavior (whose moral assessment is controversial) as more important than others, and its acolytes as more equal than others.
That doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Do you have moral issues with keeping track of how many posts people have made?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what? The administrators of the boards can do anything they want - if they want "threads deleted" to be tracked and on one's profile, I think that's just fine.
If it were up to me, no, I wouldn't make public the number of posts someone has. I think it was a bad move to make the information available from the screen instead of from the profiles. However, it isn't up to me, and since it is OSC's world, he (or his reps) can do anything they want.
Dagonee, as much as I like him, is not his rep.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think that showing post count specifies having a high post count (or a low one) makes one more important than others? edit: That is, that it advocates treating people based on their post count as more important than other factors?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. I think having a number of posts assigned to them changes how a person's posts can be recieved. I think that's too bad - newbies should judge posts by their merits alone, and old-timers have their memories to let them know who has been around for a long time.
If you're good, you don't need the boost. If you're bad, you don't deserve it.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: There is no way to avoid accountability. There is no deleting memories. There is no way to hide who you truly are; it will out in spite of anyone's best efforts. To speak at all is to indict yourself. Accountability is inevitable.
My point exactly. Why delete threads if it's already out there anyway? It seems to me that the emotions behind the posts will already have blossomed, the damage done if you want to take it that way.
Deleting a thread leaves the emotions behind, but removes the substance. It throws out the work people have put in, which they obviously find valuable and which others might find valuable, were they given the option to read it.
Further, it stops the conversation. It doesn't allow people to re-read what they wrote after they've had a chance to cool down. It doesn't allow people an opportunity to defend themselves. It doesn't allow people to apologize or try to reach a consensus.
Seems to me that it does more harm than good most of the time.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wish people would stop trying to coerce me NOT to be on this list. I keep feeling like there are people negatively judging me because I decided to take a stand on something I believe in.
posted
Exactly - it stops the conversation. Some conversations are so dreadful that the best course is to stop it.
quote:Seems to me that it does more harm than good most of the time.
For most threads, I actually agree. But not for all, which is why the ability to delete governed by discretion and wisdom is better than an absolute ban.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recall a raging controversy when the post counts got added into the Hatrack profile. I'm not feeling like thread digging at the moment, and maybe it has dropped off of the hatrack history. (although the wayback machine might be able to find it.)
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Exactly - it stops the conversation. Some conversations are so dreadful that the best course is to stop it.
Why does it fall to the original poster to have the power to stop conversations? Are they better able to judge the worth of a conversation than any of the other people involved? If I start a thread, and 10 days later come back to find it different than my initial post, why is it up to me to decide if it's so dreadful that none of the people participating ought to be able to continue?
If one person feels the conversation is dreadful, they have every right to leave it. One person's dreadful is another person's informative.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know what I'd support? Adding three fields to the user profile database, tracking the number of times someone edited a post, the number of times someone deleted a post, and the number of times someone deleted a thread.
This seems as absurd to me as the original intent of this thread. Not stupid, not evil, merely absurd in the most abstract sense. We've gotten to this point where the deletion of threads seems like this magical indicator of someone's reliability and character. And it's absurd.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is now or has ever been an indicator of character - seeing it as such may be the cause of some of the contention.
It's simply a statement of fact. I will not delete threads I start. That may make people more willing to post in the threads I start, but it says nothing to my character (which is flippin' awesome, by the way).
*Aside: This thread is boosting my post count like nobody's business. Soon I'll be well respected, universally liked and allowed to use the Special Poster's restroom.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know what I'd support? Adding three fields to the user profile database, tracking the number of times someone edited a post, the number of times someone deleted a post, and the number of times someone deleted a thread.
This seems as absurd to me as the original intent of this thread. Not stupid, not evil, merely absurd in the most abstract sense. We've gotten to this point where the deletion of threads seems like this magical indicator of someone's reliability and character. And it's absurd.
This seems like a good point to point out that when I use words like mistrust I'm referring entirely to thread starting. Entirely. But that's appropriate, isn't it? When I'm deciding whether or not to post in a particular thread (and I'm rather a lurker, so there is definitely a decision process involved here), I do something of a mental weighing of the "risk".
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The moderator has not expressed an interest in regulating relations between posters that do not fall within the domain of the ToS.
More specifically, although the moderator may agree that someone is being something unmentionable, he does not feel it is his role to police that.
Advocating taking it to the mod would require expanding the role of the mod. While I would completely trust Pop's assesments of when someone is nasty enough to be deserve to be shut down, that is not his job, I don't think he wants it, and the TPTB have not made it so.
We are left to ourselves, closer to both anarchy and freedom. The ability to delete threads is essential.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I would completely trust Pop's assesments of when someone is nasty enough to be deserve to be shut down, that is not his job, I don't think he wants it, and the TPTB have not made it so.
In the board I post on, Pop does in fact lock threads and delete/edit posts when he feels the people on it have crossed the line. Am I alone on this board and everyone else is posting on a different one?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: We've gotten to this point where the deletion of threads seems like this magical indicator of someone's reliability and character. And it's absurd.
I think it would be absurd, but I also don't think it is true. It isn't anything but an indicator that someone has decided not to delete threads. I think that thinking it is more than that is the reason people have a problem with it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does a single person crossing the line, in the opinion of the thread starter, outweigh the value of all the other posts in the thread? Seems like it's giving power to the people who least value the posts of the other participants.
If you delete posts, the terrorists win.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
JH: Do you believe that he doesn't lock every thread because he did not have time to find every instance of someone crossing the line, because you do not agree with his judgement, or for some other reason?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does a single person crossing the line, in the opinion of the thread starter, outweigh the value of all the other posts in the thread?
It can. That should be evaluated in a case by case basis.
But that evaluation is only by the original poster. That poster isn't necessarily the person who is most invested in the thread.
I wonder if there is a way to agree to a consensus deletion. If x percentage of the contributers think a thread should vanish? Or say, three (or whatever) or more posters agree. Something like that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
