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

Oh. That doesn't tally so well with what you originally wrote to Steve regarding his concerns about the confusing effect of your mass deletions:

To me, that doesn't exactly scream "taking responsibility".

That comment was specific to Steve.

Are you suggesting that I am obliged to respect Steve, while he is free to disrespect me? I am not a member of this community? 

Because to say that you are not going to respect my decision, in favor of the respect the community (which apparently includes everyone but me) is owed, says that the members of the community can demand respect, while I can not.

Linda

Perhaps the easiest solution is to just allow a thread creator to clearly mark, PERHAPS IN ALL CAPS, whether the thread allows for deletions or not going forward.

Since the original deletion feature did not have any caveats, it only seems fair to let any past mass deletions stand. (Also if those deletions are not really deleted, but kept on the server in perpetuity, I think this should be made clear to all going forward.)

I suppose there would have to [be] some means of freezing or undoing deletions in such cases, but that does seem better than a blanket-wide rule against whatever would qualify as a "mass deletion".

This also gets around the problem when a single post is the key to a discussion, for example if I post a link and then delete it after several people were discussing it. (Generally I try not to delete my posts, but just giving an example.)

[Laird]

That comment was specific to Steve.

Are you suggesting that I am obliged to respect Steve, while he is free to disrespect me? I am not a member of this community? 

Because to say that you are not going to respect my decision, in favor of the respect the community (which apparently includes everyone but me) is owed, says that the members of the community can demand respect, while I can not.

Linda

Hmm. You still seem to be taking this all very, very personally. And I understand: you are one of the two members whose recent activities inspired this thread/poll. But please, accept that, as I wrote early on in this thread, this poll is not directed at you specifically and personally. You are only one of three members whose mass deletions over the lifetime of this forum have accumulated to a tipping point at which Ian and I as moderators have said to each other (paraphrased, of course), "Hmm. These mass deletions are becoming a thing. Do we really want to allow threads to continue to be messed up in this way?" - and, as you must know, the other two are not hardcore skeptics as you are a hardcore skeptic (my description; you may not accept it).

Yes, of course you are a member of this community! Whoever said or implied that you're not? Again: you're taking this very personally, but any restrictions that might eventuate from this thread would apply to every member of the community: you're not being singled out!

Hmm. You still seem to be taking this all very, very personally. And I understand: you are one of the two members whose recent activities inspired this thread/poll. But please, accept that, as I wrote early on in this thread, this poll is not directed at you specifically and personally. You are only one of three members whose mass deletions over the lifetime of this forum have accumulated to a tipping point at which Ian and I as moderators have said to each other (paraphrased, of course), "Hmm. These mass deletions are becoming a thing. Do we really want to allow threads to continue to be messed up in this way?" - and, as you must know, the other two are not hardcore skeptics as you are a hardcore skeptic (my description; you may not accept it).

Yes, of course you are a member of this community! Whoever said or implied that you're not? Again: you're taking this very personally, but any restrictions that might eventuate from this thread would apply to every member of the community: you're not being singled out!

Are you planning to restore deleted posts that have already been mass deleted?

Or just planning to make this a rule going forward?

[Laird]

Perhaps the easiest solution is to just allow a thread creator to clearly mark, PERHAPS IN ALL CAPS, whether the thread allows for deletions or not going forward.

I'm not sure that that's really helpful, Sci. No offence, but here's the problem I see with it: the issue we're trying to address is individuals deciding (on what we think is typically a whim or fit of pique or some other related emotional prompt) to arbitrarily to delete a mass of their posts - so, continuing to leave it up to individuals (thread creators) to decide (or to allow respondents in their threads to decide) on a whim or in a fit of pique or some other emotional prompt to arbitrarily delete a mass of their posts... doesn't really solve the underlying issue. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Since the original deletion feature did not have any caveats, it only seems fair to let any past mass deletions stand.

I think that this is up for discussion. Personally, I'd favour a retroactive condition. Members would be given the chance to either (1) accept the new terms of membership, including their retroactive conditions, or (2) refuse the new membership terms, and to take a period of time, perhaps a fortnight, in which to delete any posts of theirs that they cared to, with their membership thereafter being cancelled.

(Also if those deletions are not really deleted, but kept on the server in perpetuity, I think this should be made clear to all going forward.)

Oh, well, then, certainly, let it be known that that is the case. The MyBB software that we use permits non-admin users to only "soft-delete" their posts, meaning that the posts remain in the database, but are simply not shown to non-admin users. Only admin users can "hard-delete" posts, meaning that all traces of the posts in question are permanently erased from the database.

Unfortunately, I couldn't really make sense of the rest of your post. Almost certainly that's a failing on my part, not yours.

[Laird]

Are you planning to restore deleted posts that have already been mass deleted?

Or just planning to make this a rule going forward?

See my above post. But it's not so much "planning" as "proposing" - the ultimate decision lies with the community.

[Laird]

on what we think

Apologies, Ian. I shouldn't speak for you when I haven't actually determined that you share this view.

[Laird]

(Also if those deletions are not really deleted, but kept on the server in perpetuity, I think this should be made clear to all going forward.)

Oh, well, then, certainly, let it be known that that is the case. The MyBB software that we use permits non-admin users to only "soft-delete" their posts, meaning that the posts remain in the database, but are simply not shown to non-admin users. Only admin users can "hard-delete" posts, meaning that all traces of the posts in question are permanently erased from the database.

I think I should add this to my response:

We take automated daily backups of the database, so, unless a post was hard-deleted within that part of the 24 hour period in which an automated backup did not occur, it will certainly be present in one or more of our backups (and, again, non-admin users can't even hard-delete posts anyway, but they can edit them into empty posts). These backups are, however, encrypted with a passphrase to which, currently, only two people are privy (one of those is myself).

[Ninshub]

Apologies, Ian. I shouldn't speak for you when I haven't actually determined that you share this view.

That's OK. I mean there are nuances here and there, and we haven't spoken about all of this, but there's no problem.

My perspective is also that this thread is just to have the discussion, with whatever the results turn out to be.

[Laird]

My perspective is also that this thread is just to have the discussion, with whatever the results turn out to be.

Ditto.