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

[Laird]

Greetings, citizens of Psience Quest. Concerns have been expressed (see here and here, for example) that in recent days, members have deleted many - in some cases all - of their posts from threads to which they've been significant contributors. This is not the first time that this has happened. The two currently active moderators, Ian (Ninshub) and myself, feel that these are legitimate concerns, however, given that

(1) these concerns are not shared by all remaining active forum founders, and,
(2) we feel that this is an issue that should be decided not by administrative fiat but by the community,

we have created this thread with a poll to try to gauge what the community sentiment is on this issue.

The reasons given in parentheses after each answer are representative only - you need not select the answer for that reason; your reason(ing) may be different.

If you select option #3, then we would appreciate it if you tried to delineate "good" from "bad" reasons for deleting a mass of one's posts from one or more threads.

Cheers, guys.

This isn't "should we allow swear words on the forum". This is a serious, possibly fundamental human right that we are talking about here. The idea of rights exists in order to prevent majorities from repressing minorities, which makes voting an inappropriate method for deciding the issue.

But more importantly, even if none of that were the case, what kind of forum do you want this to be? Because if permission is denied - and if you do this, you better put this policy in bold letters across the top of every page - do you think it will encourage Chris to return and others like him to join or stay? Or will it continue the job of driving away thoughtful, knowledgeable people with an interest in these subjects? 

Linda

Trust her to come out with that load of sanctimonious bollocks.

[Laird]

This isn't "should we allow swear words on the forum". This is a serious, possibly fundamental human right that we are talking about here.

Yes, you're right - this is a serious issue - and there is certainly room for legitimate differences of opinion: hence this thread, in which differing opinions can be resolved or at least expressed and thrashed out. Thank you for sharing your own opinion, and for linking to that document.

The idea of rights exists in order to prevent majorities from repressing minorities, which makes voting an inappropriate method for deciding the issue.

OK. Which alternative method would you suggest then?

But more importantly, even if none of that were the case, what kind of forum do you want this to be?

We want this to be a forum in which discussions are not semi-randomly disrupted by mass deletions of posts by their authors - potentially (which is my own preference) unless those mass deletions have a reasonable justification which stands up to scrutiny.

Because if permission is denied - and if you do this, you better put this policy in bold letters across the top of every page

We would more than likely simply amend the membership agreement, and make ongoing membership conditional on acceptance of the amended membership agreement. But that, too, is up for discussion in this thread.

do you think it will encourage Chris to return and others like him to join or stay?

Obviously, given that Chris is our most prolific contributor with a strong interest in and mind for parapsychology, we do not want to lose him. On the other hand, I don't think that we should be craven: I don't think that we should allow the potential loss of even our most valued member to affect our decision on this issue.

Or will it continue the job of driving away thoughtful, knowledgeable people with an interest in these subjects?

I wasn't aware that thoughtful, knowledgeable people with an interest in these subjects were already being driven away from Psience Quest. Can you give some examples of these people, and their reasons for being driven away? I'm serious: we really want this forum to be attractive to anybody with a serious interest in parapsychology and related matters, especially professional and practising parapsychologists, and we are very keen to retain them and minimise the chance that they will be driven away.

[Ninshub]

This is a serious, possibly fundamental human right that we are talking about here.

Thanks Linda, that's an interesting document that in my view we should take into consideration.

Depending on what the outcome of the poll is, one of the key elements I see in that document is people being able to remove their material "after a period of time". IF the poll turns out to be A as an answer, or even C, we could think of a set time period, like when a thread is no longer active and hasn't been for months, for example, to allow a person to delete their posts if they wish or really need that to happen. To me that would make more sense if the person was leaving the forum, though, and no longer wanted to have a trace. But anyway I'm just thinking out loud. A conversation could be made to hash out this stuff, again when the poll results are in.

What I find interesting about all this, is that all the times when there were huge mass deletions of my posts on the previous incarnations of the Skeptiko forum, against my wishes - posts which contained useful, highly specific information about evaluating evidence, detailed examinations of various research papers, etc. - which truly made a large number of threads unreadable, no concern whatsoever was expressed by the proponent forum members about this loss.

Yet, when I delete a small number of posts, after the conversation is over, on Yet Another Anti-Materialist Troll thread - the kind of thread which has never been enlightening or useful, other than as a distraction at the time - it's suddenly of vital importance that even though the conversation is over, others are able to revisit the thread in its entirety for all eternity?

Give me a break. We need a "giantest eye-roll of all time" icon.

When I deleted the posts on the COVID-19 threads, I discovered that it freed me from frustration and other negative feelings, to let go of my words. Similarly, one of the posters becomes less of an ass when I let go of my attempts to be playful, in the Scientism thread. I don't know that I will do this in the future, but at the time it turned out to be a calming and positive experience.

However, even if I had no good reason to do so, or did so for nefarious reasons, it should still be my call to make. I feel very strongly about this. 

Linda

[Ninshub]

When I deleted the posts on the COVID-19 threads, I discovered that it freed me from frustration and other negative feelings, to let go of my words. Similarly, one of the posters becomes less of an ass when I let go of my attempts to be playful, in the Scientism thread. I don't know that I will do this in the future, but at the time it turned out to be a calming and positive experience.

To me that's an example of a potentially valid reason. However there's also the thought of balancing an individual's rights of well-being with considering the effect on other forum members' rights.

But, again, that doesn't preclude, for example, setting up a time period after which it'd be OK to mass delete. Again, just thoughts to add to the conversation.

Thanks Linda, that's an interesting document that in my view we should take into consideration.

Depending on what the outcome of the poll is, one of the key elements I see in that document is people being able to remove their material "after a period of time". IF the poll turns out to be A as an answer, or even C, we could think of a set time period, like when a thread is no longer active and hasn't been for months, for example, to allow a person to delete their posts if they wish or really need that to happen. To me that would make more sense if the person was leaving the forum, though, and no longer wanted to have a trace. But anyway I'm just thinking out loud. A conversation could be made to hash out this stuff, again when the poll results are in.

I don't think that we need to go through the bother of polling and hacking out a new policy, when this is really just about what I did. As I said way back at the beginning of this forum, "treat me differently on an ad hoc basis, rather than try to arrange the rules to 'jusitfy" these gestures". 

I'd much rather see you do what you want to placate the whiners than watch the contortions it takes to justify your actions as reasoned. (the general you/your)

Linda

[Ninshub]

If I refer to the old post that you linked, tell me if I'm misunderstanding but I'm getting the impression you're viewed here the way you were at Skeptiko. Which is not the case on my part. I'm kind of tired a bit of all those Skeptiko references, because that was another forum and my own mentality has evolved some, along with my role here - but I also understand people were marked by their experiences there, and they carry it with them.

But perhaps again I'm misunderstanding the motivations and gist of what you were saying.

[Laird]

I don't think that we need to go through the bother of polling and hacking out a new policy, when this is really just about what I did.

Wow. No, Linda, seriously, this isn't about you. It's hard to imagine that you could say that when you have already acknowledged that we may lose our most prolific pro-parapsychology member over this.