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

[Laird]

In the context of Ian's post above, one thing I want to make clear is this: I would much, much prefer that Chris had stuck around and done what Linda is doing - fought for his beliefs. No decision has yet been made on this issue: it is totally up for debate and discussion, right here and right now. I really, really wish that Chris had understood that his input into this decision would be very, very valuable, rather than taking offence at the very idea that we would even consider raising it publicly, albeit that my original drafting of the first post in this thread was slightly less neutral.

[Ninshub]

Without going into too many details, or assuming I know all of his motivations, I interpret Chris's words to me as meaning he didn't want to be involved in a forum where misinformation was allowed on the virus threads as people were dying, then was ready to give it another chance when the decision was made to move the threads, but at that very moment Laird let him know we were thinking of going ahead with this poll, and this was the "last straw". I told him then to please reconsider and if this meant his departure I for one would oppose the idea of such a poll (again, rightly or wrongly in retrospect, I was going on emotion), but he told me in any case it was now too late and that he would never come back.

[Laird]

It's very disappointing, Ian. I valued Chris not only as a public contributor to this forum, but also as a colleague with whom I could exchange thoughts and ideas privately, and it seems that now all of that is lost, when the outcome of this poll is far from a given.

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...

Yeah, it's hard to ignore whiners when you're in a position of some authority. That's ultimately why I'm not allowed to have red adirondack chairs on my front lawn, even though the community was perfectly fine, for it's first 20 years, when a few people here and there had nice chairs of various colors in their front yard.

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?

I'm not telling you to make decisions based on what its most significant contributor wants, when it comes to making demands with respect to the behavior/presence of other members. I'm suggesting that when you decide to interfere with the behavior/presence of a member, you weigh the effect of your actions. I would have hoped that "valuable contributor" had some weight on that balance.

For example, I don't remember what the issue was exactly, but I remember you and Chris got into it sometime over tone policing. You wanted Chris to walk back something he said. I would hope that that situation led you to evaluate just how heavy-handed you wanted to be, when pressing your point so hard that Chris was prepared to leave.

Linda

[Ninshub]

Let me just say that in general I can't think of a moderator less heavy-handed than Laird is, and more ready to question himself and alter his views. I admire him in that way. Often he has made me check my own sometimes potentially more authoritarian impulsions.

In the recent situation with Chris, I have no hesitation to interpret it as Chris already being in a state of emotional upheaval, disappointment, etc., and it made him very reactive to that PM of Laird's, which was made with the idea precisely to let him know ahead of time the poll might be coming so that he wouldn't be taken aback. I don't think there was a way to know in advance that Chris would react the way he did. When we get very mad, emotional, etc., we usually think and react in more rigid, black-and-white ways. (I'm speaking for myself, and what I think is the case for people in general.)

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.

With all due respect, I still don't understand why someone is obliged to justify their personal actions to you. We are different people. I don't want to have to watch you trivialize something which is important to me. It shouldn't be any of your business. If it's important to me, and we're only talking about my own posts, that should be enough to justify it, regardless of whether you know my reasons.

Linda

[Laird]

Yeah, it's hard to ignore whiners when you're in a position of some authority.

As with Brian's sentiments, that cuts both ways: others might equally perceive you to be the "whiner" in this situation. But I wouldn't use that word of anybody involved here. I think we're simply having a discussion about how we want our forum to function.

I'm not telling you to make decisions based on what its most significant contributor wants, when it comes to making demands with respect to the behavior/presence of other members. I'm suggesting that when you decide to interfere with the behavior/presence of a member, you weigh the effect of your actions. I would have hoped that "valuable contributor" had some weight on that balance.

Absolutely he has (would have had) weight on that balance. As I wrote above, I wish he'd stuck around to argue his case as you're doing.

[Laird]

Thanks, Ian, for those very kind words, and I expect that your analysis of Chris's reaction is spot-on.

Without going into too many details, or assuming I know all of his motivations, I interpret Chris's words to me as meaning he didn't want to be involved in a forum where misinformation was allowed on the virus threads as people were dying, then was ready to give it another chance when the decision was made to move the threads, but at that very moment Laird let him know we were thinking of going ahead with this poll, and this was the "last straw". I told him then to please reconsider and if this meant his departure I for one would oppose the idea of such a poll (again, rightly or wrongly in retrospect, I was going on emotion), but he told me in any case it was now too late and that he would never come back.

To be honest, I also am very disturbed just at the idea of such a poll. It seems to be a degree of interference way above and beyond the degree of moderation we are used to seeing. And as I pointed out in my first post - possibly even above and beyond what is legal or ethical. And this is on a forum which hasn't even engaged in the sorts of moderation activities which are ordinary and expected, let alone the heavy-handed approach this entails. So it doesn't surprise me Chris found that to be the last straw. I am very sorry to hear that he was open to coming back and that we lost our chance for this. I realize that Chris and I had our differences (although, quite strangely, our perspective on parapsychology was nearly identical). But I realized a while ago that as long as we weren't talking to each other, his conversations were very valuable.

Linda

As with Brian's sentiments, that cuts both ways: others might equally perceive you to be the "whiner" in this situation.

It's not symmetrical. I'm not trying to interfere with someone else's behavior, nor am I trying to impose my personal feelings or opinions onto someone else. I'm sticking up for my own feelings/opinion. I am perfectly willing to listen to others' opinions and take those into consideration. But the only person having their actions interfered with is me. Or rather, discussion as to whether it is okay to interfere with my actions.

Linda