posted
I think that the difference is in the way we think of the original poster. I don't think of the threads as being the creation of one poster in which we all help but rather a collaboration that one person starts but is a community effort.
If I started more threads, I might feel differently about this.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Thanks for the votes of confidence.
As for the difference being the original poster makes, it's that word: original. Someone had the idea and initiated it, bringing it into the world. That's why I think Kate's analogy is a very good one... while certainly not the only one with an original contribution to the project, the initiator *does*, IMO, have a certain ownership of the thing by virtue of being the one who started the ball rolling.
I think that can be true, most notably in the landmark-type threads. I think it's completely opposite in the threads where the first post is something like a link to a news story with the question "What does everybody think of this?" and other posters write in-depth responses. In that situation I think it's ludicrous to assign "ownership" based on who posted the link first -- one of the other posters might have started the thread if there wasn't already one on that topic. Since we tend to encourage people to post in existing threads rather than start duplicates I dislike the idea that the first poster owns the thread or gets to set the terms for the discussion.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I especially think that this is the case where the original poster deletes the thread because someone in it was posting opinions that they didn't like, which, if I recall correctly, is why you deleted the recent thread Jim.
I think that the idea of the threat of deleting a thread if people don't agree with you should never be an acceptible part of Hatrack.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that the idea of the threat of deleting a thread if people don't agree with you should never be an acceptable part of Hatrack.
Actually, I agree with that as well.
It is the ability to delete a personal thread when someone is being nasty that I value and do not believe it should be taken away.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Squicky, I disagree with your characterization of Jim's deletion (while still disagreeing with his action.)
I can understand his motivation of not wanting to have his name associated with something he found profoundly distasteful in a way that is not merely deleting because the majority of posters disagreed with him.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I saw the parts of the thread in question. I got the summary afterwards. If my impression is incorrect, I think I may owe Jim an apology.
I had gotten the impression the someone was posting things highly critical of the Bush administration and Jim told them to stop, and when they didn't, deleted the thread.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There has been at least one poster who did exactly that, and then reposted the initial post in a new thread and repeatedly deleted it when the conversation did not go the way he wanted.
That was not Jim.
Edited to add, because I originally tried to edit it into my last post, but hit "quote" instead of "edit" and then deleted (oh horrors! ) the resultant double post:
I can understand his motivation of not wanting to have his name associated with something he found profoundly distasteful in a way that is not merely deleting because posters disagreed with him. I wish there had been a way for him to remove his name from the thread without deleting it, however.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Edited to acknowledge Mr. Squicky's statement above. Especially in light of that, what I wrote was out of line and I apologize.]
To answer your question... I think thread drift is inevitable and natural and no I don't feel like it is just cause for deleting a thread at all. However I do feel like multiple-posting completely off topic, in a controversial and inflamatory manner, refusing legitimate discussion, ignoring those who attempt to address you and who are calling you out for being offensive is a rather disgusting combination of trolling and spamming... and yes I support the right of the thread starter to take action in those circumstances.
And that's regardless of the opinions contained therein and I would have done the same thing to Jay, Mig, or Bean Counter in a heartbeat, though I expect Jay and Mig would have had the courtesy and consideration to shut up when their behavior was called.
Dana and Kate, I totally get where you are coming from and while I'm not in complete agreement, your position makes sense. This is a disagreement we can discuss, not something that calls for lecturing and ostracision, which is what I felt like I was receiving.
If I had no concern for the rights of other posters, I would not have given notice at all that the thread was going to be deleted. Dagonee, above, was the first acknowledgement by anyone of what I thought was a fairly significant action, at least in terms of what my view was of the rights of other posters on the thread (i.e. that I *am* concerned for them, even if not as much as others would like).
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry you feel ostracized, Jim. I have always liked interacting with you and considered you a friend. I don't think I've ever ostracized you. If you feel like you don't want to spend time in either of the places I can interact with you, though, I don't know where that leaves us.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
But it stung to wake up, on my 39th birthday no less, to find a number of people who I like and respect were pretty pissed off at me. I probably would have gotten over it a lot faster had all this happened in real life, but I have more than enough real life issues to make Hatrack and Sake truly back-burner things for me and I really didn't have the energy to hash it all out.
But I freely admit that I'd never stay away for too long... which is why I don't post huffy, breathless, "I'm leaving" messages anymore-- they simply aren't true. Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, I think I do owe you an apology. I still disagree with your action, but it was nowhere near as outrageous as I had been led to believe. It is entirely possible that others also had a mistaken impression of what you did. That's sort of what happens when you delete the evidence.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is anytihng we write here actually worth anything for posterity? I hypothesize that if we were shakespeare or plato (or even OSC's Locke and Demosthenese) we wouldn't be posting here.
And while it is a beautiful idea, I don't know that OSC's Locke and Demosthenes discourse actually is viable in our non-fiction world.
I think more people care about Brangelina.
So I am cyincal about retaining evidence for posterity... who says we deserve posterity?
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's sort of what happens when you delete the evidence.
True Dat.
Thanks for the apology.
And apologies to everyone for the derail... I really didn't mean to draw this much attention... I just saw myself as a relevant example.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I was involved in the discussion around your last thread deletion, Jim, I feel the need to point out that our recollections of the converastions surrounding it are very different. I didn't see any hostility directed to you on sake, unless we have very different definitions of the word. Several people said they wished you wouldn't do it or expressed their disapproval. No one attacked you for it. I'm sorry you feel ostracized as a result, but I've gone back and re-read the conversation on sake twice now and people's reactions to you in it are considerably less harsh than prior posting of your own on Hatrack that you have defended as not being out of line.
And yes, you gave notice, but you gave 30 minutes notice on sake, not the one day notice you used in your example to Dagonee that he said would alleviate most of his objections to thread deletion. I don't know if you gave the same 30 minutes notice on the actual thread or not, and we obviously can't check, but given that most people aren't here continuously throughout the day that's really not enough notice to make a difference, as far as I'm concerned. I think giving the example of a days notice here and comparing it to your own thread disingenuously implies that that's what you actually did, when it's not.
I've defended you before, on other matters. The fact that I disagree with you on this one doesn't mean I don't want you around. I disagree with plenty of people that I still manage to be friends with.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I freely admit that I took things too personally. It was particularly egregious with your own posting, El Jay, and that's one of the reasons I felt I owed you an apology (better late than never!)
And, if I may back up a bit: I *felt* ostracised... past tense. I have been gradually posting again on both forums.
Banna, I don't knwo that anyone has said anything worth saving here for "posterity", but it's *clearly* worth it to some people. I do know I have one thread that I look forward to showing my kids again in ten years or so (I do have my own copy of it). Edit: on the other hand, I largely agree with you-- this is the internet, and not even wikipedia... which I think says enough right there.
Further edit: No, I didn't give a day's notice. I recall trying to give an hour, but my recollection may well be off. I used a day's notice in my comparative example because I was talking about the quilting project... where communication would certainly be slower and where the effort to produce a square is probably much longer term than the effort to produce a post. I was trying to stay within the analogy, not mislead on what I did. Apologies, again, for the misconstruance.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Accepted, and thank you, again. (And I did check on the timeframe before I posted, because I wanted to be accurate.)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Overwriting original source history is a really really reallyBAD idea. Which is what automatic deletion is. Tain't as if everything that has been written and will be written on Hatrack could ever fill its storage capacity. Not when ya consider that the hardware is gonna wear out and be replaced by new systems with ever larger storage capacity faster than folks will type in new stuff.
We've already lost the original reactions to the Afghanistan's TwinBuddhas and NewYorkCity's TwinTowers (correlated well before 9/11) due to quick&dirty repairs of hack attacks. We've already lost the original reactions to HurricaneKatrina due to deletions by the thread originators. Anybody wanna say that they contained only links and keywords for searches that are irrelevant to conversations today? Anybody wanna claim that they remember all of the keywords or the addresses/websites of those links?
Should people have to refind links and retype responses to questions they've already answered every time some lazy "I'm smarter than science" narcissist posts the same old nonsense by Junk"Science", American"Enterprise"Institute, MichaelCrichton, Institute for Creation"Science", "Focus on the Family", etc? How many times do you think that eg Dagonee is gonna be willing to refind links and retype responses to the same type of legal questions? Or Rabbit will respond to the same ol' antiClimateChange assertions? Etc. "Been there, done that" is a disincentive. A strong one after many repetitions because it's easy to post nonsense, and a time-consuming process to demonstrate why it's nonsense. Without a quick&easy way to refind old responses, eventually this forum will be drowning in misinformation and disinformation.
Some of the deletions are so pointless that it's hard to imagine even a bad motive for taking the time to delete. eg Someone ?Strider?fugu13? made the effort to post a really nice simple&easy-to-understand answer to a question concerning how continuous compound interest works via algebraic expansion. Gone. Found the thread, and found the contents had been deleted. Ain't as if the contents became suddenly useless, or that there'd been even the most minor hint of unpleasantry in that thread.
posted
I think deleting a thread is like vomiting. Sometimes it's the only way to get rid of the poison. Sometimes it can't be helped. Folks who do it on purpose need professional help. A warning is always nice. If you go boating on stormy seas for fun, don't complain when it happens.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And like vomiting, often times it might seem like the right idea at the time, but it often causes more harm than good when better methods are available.
Watch what you eat, for example.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is the ability to delete a personal thread when someone is being nasty that I value and do not believe it should be taken away.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a personal thread, and if there is, I'm not sure how it grants special considerations to the person.
quote: I think deleting a thread that has turned hurtful is perfectly fine.
Let's say that there is a six page thread. The first page is inane, the second has a few truly insightful gems on it, and the last four are vitriol, deleting that thread still seems to be shadowy business. It's strikes me as a class of book burning.
___________________
It's a rare time when I'm charged with underestimating my own sense of judgment, but I can't imagine deciding that someone's post, or a thread with a variety of posts, are too awful to survive, especially if they are emotionally evocative. I probably wouldn't make a very good moderator, though, I wouldn't be impartial and I wouldn't delete posts.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) the resultant double post: ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
