Should mass deletion of one's own posts be permitted?

I know that deleting posts in such a way disrupts continuity but some things in life are just tough luck.  You have no automatic right to my posts any more than I have automatic right to yours and at the end of the day, PQ is not essential and neither therefore is the continuity of threads.  Life will go on without these posts.  If I have a reason to delete my posts, then I have a right to do so, and it is nobody else's business why.  This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact!

Well, that's actually categorically false Brian.  This forum isn't a public service and the forum "owners" can set whatever rules they like.  You choice, which can not be taken away from you, is your ability to post or not post.

At the end of the day, if enough members feel uncomfortable with a policy NOT allowing mass deletions, I'd probably vote to let things stand as they are.  I just don't understand the logic of it and no proponent for the "allow me to mass delete" has given a strong rationale.  It also seems taht when its been done the rationale as often been an emotional, "I'm taking my ball and going home" kind of thing which I find pretty abhorrent.

This is obviously an issue that concerns the community, so are you suggesting that we ignore issues that concern the community? Where would that get us?

Does it? It didn't concern the community the first 4 times it happened. It only started to "concern the community" when Stan brought it up in retrospect. This will be forgotten in a day or two. It's only alive now because of your poll. 

Speaking personally, I think people should definitely have the ability to delete individual posts. It is only when that right is abused that problems occur. I have myself deleted individual posts. There are many reasons why a person might want to delete an individual post. For example, "Gosh, I revealed more private information than I wanted to in that post. Quick, let's get rid of it!", or "Oops, I got a little overheated and lashed out too harshly in that post, better cancel it before too many people see it!". And I am therefore willing to allow for individual posts to be deleted on some sort of basis like those.

But mass deletions? I think you have to have a very, very good reason before the forum community permits you to do that.

I'm guessing you're anti-choice, then.

Oh, well, it's too bad that you're unwilling to provide specific examples. It might have been helpful.


I'm not sure what you mean by Chris "not counting". Are you suggesting that the most prolific members should be able to dictate forum policy? Where do you think that that would leave you? How merciful on you do you think that Chris would be if he were granted that latitude?

Absolutely. If you had gone to Chris and told him that you were going to reverse his deletions, and he said that he would leave if you did so, I would absolutely hope that you would back down. If you seriously would pick this hill to die on, over having such a valuable contributor around as Chris, then there is no way a discussion with you could be helpful.

I'm not talking "I'm going to leave the forum unless you kick Linda off" kind of "dictate forum policy".

Linda

[Laird]

It also seems taht when its been done the rationale as often been an emotional, "I'm taking my ball and going home" kind of thing which I find pretty abhorrent.

I tend to see things in the same light, Silence, and it makes the situation tricky. When emotions like these are involved ("Screw you guys, I'm going home" kind of thing), it's difficult to disentangle them from what the appropriate action would be (is) in the absence of tricky emotions like these. I mean no condescension here either - there are plenty of circumstances in which my own emotions get entangled in this way.

[Laird]

Does it?

Considering that this thread is already running into four pages within less than a day, I think it's safe to say "Yes".

I'm guessing you're anti-choice, then.

You're talking about abortion? If you want to explore my views on that topic, then please feel free to start a thread in "Other Topics". Otherwise, I don't think it's relevant here.

If you had gone to Chris and told him that you were going to reverse his deletions, and he said that he would leave if you did so, I would absolutely hope that you would back down.

I see. OK then. Here's a hypothetical to explore this:

What if I'd gone to Chris and told him that ten skeptics with similar views to yours were going to join the forum, and he had said that if they did, he would leave? Would you "absolutely" hope that I would back down in that scenario?

Fair question Linda.

While my feelings are pretty well stated now, I also think its a disservice to the community for posts to be mass deleted except in case of obvious malice/abuse.  Whatever learnings folks may take from a dialogue, whether positive or negative, are put at risk by mass deletions.  And, again, I would make it clear that you as a poster do have a choice:  Don't make the post if you don't want it to be permanent.

Again, in the days of public written discourse, before the online platforms, what methods were available?  You could write a letter to the editor of your local paper.  You could write a member of the legislature or executive branch.  You could write to a university or college.  In none of these cases did you have the option of "mass deleting" what you had written.  I used a verbal conversation as my example before and I think its still relevant: In a group discussion corollary to what we do here you can't "unsay" what you said.

Finally, I have yet to hear a strong rationale for why one would want to mass delete other than the easy to hide behind shield of "personal choice".

Thank you for responding. I disagree very strongly with your perspective. "Disservice to the community" can be and has been used to excuse any number of evils. I'm not under an obligation to conform to your arbitrary threshold. If I were doing something to you, you might have a case. But "makes it slightly difficult to read a thread that I was never going to read again anyways" doesn't cut it.  

Again, if you are going to compare this to a verbal conversation, then I have not deleted any of it. It continues to exist in exactly the same way that every other verbal conversation I have had exists. None of it is unsaid. In fact, much of it is still probably written, in other people's posts. And even if it weren't, I would stand by my words if someone came back to me later to ask about something I said. 

Yes, I don't have the option of "deleting" a letter I've written. And a long time ago, when I was on the JREF forum, the ability to edit posts (and I think also delete them) only lasted for an hour. It wasn't a problem. I'm not in the habit of doing so, anyways. 

Linda

Considering that this thread is already running into four pages within less than a day, I think it's safe to say "Yes".

I doubt it. Almost all of it is my posts.  (Or people responding to me, I should add.)

I see. OK then. Here's a hypothetical to explore this:

What if I'd gone to Chris and told him that ten skeptics with similar views to yours were going to join the forum, and he had said that if they did, he would leave? Would you "absolutely" hope that I would back down in that scenario?

Seriously, can you not see how that is an entirely different situation?

Linda

[Laird]

I doubt it.

Well, in any case, your only response to my question (paraphrased) "What alternative is there to community consultation on this issue in the form of a poll?" has been (roughly paraphrased) "Screw it, just make an executive decision to assume that it doesn't matter".

I'm not sure how that's a particularly useful approach...

Seriously, can you not see how that is an entirely different situation?

Look, the ultimate point is that you're telling us that we should make decisions based not on what the community wants, but on what its most significant contributor wants. That's fundamentally anti-democratic, and the antithesis of the spirit in which we created this community. From the start we have been community-driven, not elitist. You get that, right?

[Ninshub]

If you had gone to Chris and told him that you were going to reverse his deletions, and he said that he would leave if you did so, I would absolutely hope that you would back down. If you seriously would pick this hill to die on, over having such a valuable contributor around as Chris, then there is no way a discussion with you could be helpful.

Something very much like that definitely did occur (rightly or wrongly), as I was the one communicating in PM with Chris after his initial reaction to Laird's proposal about this poll going forward. I told him I would seriously back away from backing the idea of this poll if it was the deciding factor. But he said it was too late, and his mind was already made to leave. I told him to please think about it, take time off. But he came back saying his decision was irrevocable.

In what scenario would someone need/want to mass delete their posts?  What harm is done to them if they did not have this ability?

Stated another way, would folks literally leave the community if they didn't have this ability?

Linda, this seems like a lot to do about nothing.  To me at least.

I'm disappointed in Chris's decision to leave but even more so in his decision to not share his reasons.  He has no obligation to do so of course, but I still find it disappointing.  I valued his contributions.