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

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

I can't see that being fair. Going forward, making a clear decision I think is fine.

Retroactively using a new rule to restore posts that have been deleted strikes me as quite unfair, as the delete key was provided without any restriction on its use.

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?

It seems rather unfair to try and judge why people are using a feature that was included at the forum's inception. I can see both moral and personal mental health reasons for mass deleting posts, though I don't usually like mass deletions I'd once more note there was no caveat given at the outset.

I also don't see why having a thread designated with "No Deletions" at the outset is lacking as a solution?

What you seem to be proposing is every instance of "mass deletion" will be put up for vote or some committee would decide [if the posts get restored]. What I propose is everyone knows going into a thread is that their posts would be restored if they attempt to delete their part in the conversation.

And not even thread creators should be allowed to shift from "no deletions" to "yes deletions" after they've decided on either at the outset.

Some are saying that posts always belong to the person that posts them, I tend to disagree. 

In my opinion, once the post is published, at that point the poster is freely giving it to the ‘community’ and no longer totally owns the post. The poster has a responsibility to the forum community to behave respectfully and not unilaterally take actions which may disrupt the forum.

Think what it would be like if everyone deleted posts this way, and say half of us regularly decided to do so, it would make the forum a bit of a joke. That is one of the main reasons why it shouldn’t be allowed in principle. 

That human rights has been brought into the thread is a bit of a joke. In this instance, I think it’s simply a useful deflection, or as Tim preferred to call it, ”sanctimonious bollocks”. Being cynical I happen to think that two of the three ‘deleters’, possibly all three, did so in relative fits of pique. Imo they mainly did so because they didn’t like the idea of having their opinions polluted with ‘less scientific’ thinking. Posts requesting the threads be separated from each other, one ‘real science’, one less so, in the first place hints at this being true. Their words being relegated to the hidden forums was too much to bear! After all, the hidden forums are where the whiners and trolls post their dangerous, stupid ideas. There’s no way they’d want to be associated with any of that non-mainstream nonsense. An assumption is made that they care more about the deaths and suffering than others appear to do. No-one has the answers to this event at this stage, no-one knows what is the right thing to do!

“I'm not going to participate in a site where misinformation is being propagated, when that misinformation is likely to cost lives.”

Chris posted the above statement on the 20th April 2020. 

Does Chris not realise that the actual government in the country he lives in (afaik)may well have propagated information that is almost certain to have cost lives, perhaps many? If not, he is surely naive. If so, does he endorse the government approach entirely, and think they should not be questioned? The government has been downplaying the use of face-masks which surely goes against the evidence elsewhere. How many lives will that cost? All we on the forum are doing, is asking questions that people should be allowed to ask. 

“We need people like you and Silence to fight for common sense, otherwise idiocy will dominate.  I have similar opinions to you but I'm not as good at expressing them.  Please don't give up.”

Was Brian’s response to Chris’ post shortly after. 

Common sense is assumed, but who is deemed to possess it? I posted a response to this, as I felt it was rather patronising, if not insulting - “...idiocy will dominate.” 
Who among forum members is assumed to have common sense, and who is deemed to provide the idiocy? I would suggest that some here need to assume less - be less certain, and be more accepting of opinions that others put forward, third party opinions if not their own. 

When all this is over (if it ever truly is), it will surely be interesting to see the data. Will we ever see the real data? I doubt it, but we may be able to pick enough from what data we have to see where the ‘common sense’ was sensible, or perhaps we’ll see that the ‘idiots’ may turn out to be of some use after all. 

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!

I'm not sure what you mean by "taking this personally". At it's essence, this is a personal decision. I don't see how it could be otherwise. It never occurred to me that these restrictions would apply only to me. Why would you even bring that up? Now you're making me nervous. 

As I pointed out in my initial post, we are talking about something which ethically and potentially legally, can be regarded as a human right. And the standard in this case isn't, "you have to have a damn good reason to invoke your rights". The standard is "you have to have a damn good reason to over-ride my rights".

Yet you have indicated that your inclination is to over-ride these decisions for a fairly trivial reason - some forum members may have to exert slightly more effort than they would otherwise. I know what it's like to read threads where lots of posts have been deleted, from another forum I participate in, so I know that this concern has been way overblown here. Especially since Steve admitted that "I wish I could see what Linda said" was not even part of the issue (which seems to be the usual concern with deleted posts). 

If Brian complained (and he is still free to do so) because my half of our conversation is somewhat disrupted, I would care and likely would ask for those posts to be restored on that basis. But I don't care about Steve's complaints. I got jumped on for making this distinction, and that's why I asked about whether I'm actually a member of this community. Because members are certainly allowed to not care about what they say or don't say to me (as they should be), yet you seemed to be suggesting that I shouldn't consider doing the same. Nor should I consider taking an action for my benefit which has even a trivial effect on "the community" unless I have a strong justification for doing so. That certainly seems to prioritize "the community" over me, and certainly doesn't leave me with the impression that the benefit to myself is part of the weight given to "the community". 

You also indicated how this is going to go in your post to Sciborg, when you trivialized and falsely attributed motivations for deleting posts, anyways.

Oh, and I forgot about your inability to avoid putting loaded language into your poll.

I don't see how you can be trusted with this task, instead of leaving it to individual members. I would much, much rather the policy is simply to say that you discourage people from deleting posts frivolously, and that you respect individuals' decisions when they follow that policy.

Non-interference.
 
Linda

@Laird @ Ninshub

Are you and any other administrators allowed a vote?

[Ninshub]

We are Stan. I personally just haven't made up my mind whether I want to vote, or let the rest of the community decide.  I have a preference, but overriding that at this moment is a desire that the forum members speak their minds and the majority gets its way.

So I'm still undecided as to if I should vote. Maybe we could have another poll saying if I should vote or not?

I may do so - vote I mean!

[Ninshub]

Re: Sci's concerns regarding past mass deletions. My own preference would also be that the rule applies for the future, not the past.

And we are talking about mass deletions here - like someone having made 10, 20, whatever, posts in a thread, and eliminating all of them or most in a way that wrecks the thread. Not just the occasional deletes.

I think the forum either needs to explicitly take ownership of posted material via an accepted user agreement, or allow deletions of any and all posts.

[Ninshub]

I don’t like the wording of the poll, so can’t vote using that reasoning. The poll should have been a yes/no affair... without the loaded reasoning.

I haven’t read this thread either...

1.Yes, people should be allowed to edit, or or completely delete their own posts, at any time.
2. They shouldn’t be allowed to delete the text of their posts quoted within third party posts. (It’s a public forum, there is no way to prevent what people posted from being copied. Don’t post if you don’t want the information to be published).
3. Moderators shouldn’t aid people to mass delete their posts. (IIRC Previously people have requested all their posts are deleted by the moderators).

Well 2 isn't possible so it's not on the table, and I don't think 3 is on the table either.

Regarding 1, people would still be able to edit and delete their posts - again we're talking about whether people should have the right (i.e. moderators would not interfere) with someone deleting all their posts in a thread - obviously a long one where they've made several (not just 3 or 4, my thinking anyway) and it screws up the thread for reading it.