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

[Laird]

It's not symmetrical. I'm not trying to interfere with someone else's behavior [...] [T]he only person having their actions interfered with is me.

I can see how you would see things that way. And I think I understand where you're coming from. I also think that other perspectives are possible though.

For example, somebody looking back through a thread to follow an old conversation that they remembered being interested in at the time and having useful information in it, only to find that large parts of that conversation had been excised, might also feel that their [reading/research] "actions" had been "interfered with".

There are conflicting interests here. The question is how to resolve the conflict. It is to a large extent a question of which norms this community wants to adopt on this issue whilst trying to reasonably balance the competing interests. My view is that we ought to adopt a middle ground: generally discourage/forbid members from mass deletions, but make exceptions where there is a good reason to do so.

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

Suit yourself.  Just trying to understand why this is so sensitive for some people.  Nothing more.

Linda, I find your elusiveness here truly odd considering how hard you press others on things they "believe" or "feel".

I find this whole thing odd quite frankly.  Put it this way, I would have readily joined and participated in this community from day one had there been a "no mass post deletions" policy in place.  I'm assuming Chris, Linda and others would have stayed away based on their reactions to this thread.  Its a perspective I don't understand.  Pretty simple.

[Ninshub]

Chris has contacted me and given me permission to post here his words at seeing part of this thread:

I should be grateful if people could not be given the impression that I have made any kind of threat to leave the site in order to try to influence decisions. I have not done that at all.

When I first decided to take a break, I emphasised this in a private message to Laird:
"My message wasn't an attempt to get you to do something - I just thought I should let you know privately rather than just disappearing or starting a thread to announce that I wasn't going to post any more (which wouldn't be very logical)."

Likewise when I asked Laird to cancel my account, it certainly wasn't accompanied by any demand about the site's future policy. And I asked him to do that because of what he was proposing to say publicly about people who had deleted posts, not because I had any strong feelings about future policy.

I also apologize to Chris if I've made my interpretation of his messages to me and actions sound as if he had done something irrational and purely out of emotion.

[Laird]

That's fair. If I've given that impression then I have erred. Chris, indeed, has made no demands on us.

I can see how you would see things that way. And I think I understand where you're coming from. I also think that other perspectives are possible though.

For example, somebody looking back through a thread to follow an old conversation that they remembered being interested in at the time and having useful information in it, only to find that large parts of that conversation had been excised, might also feel that their [reading/research] "actions" had been "interfered with".

I understand that. But again, it's not really symmetrical, because they don't really have any ownership here, whereas I have a good degree of ownership over my own posts. I understand that there is a private enterprise hosting my posts, and I have some obligations to follow forum rules. But nothing entitles me to interfere with others' posts (other than violations of forum rules).

There are conflicting interests here. The question is how to resolve the conflict.

The answer should be easy. Recognize that responsibility lies primarily with the individual making the post. If for some reason, this becomes a habit - I delete posts willy nilly (and I am on a forum where there are people who do just that) - other people can adjust their habits in response. Maybe nobody will respond to me. Maybe people will make a point of quoting my posts. Whatever. I don't think you can make a set of rules which will cover all the bases, and will also be even remotely civil (assuming that allowing others to have different opinions is part of civility).

It is to a large extent a question of which norms this community wants to adopt on this issue whilst trying to reasonably balance the competing interests. My view is that we ought to adopt a middle ground: generally discourage/forbid members from mass deletions, but make exceptions where there is a good reason to do so.

I'm sorry, but you and others have given me no reason to think that you are capable of making that judgement for me. And even if I thought you were, it's an appallingly bad position to take under these circumstances. Just remind people not to delete posts frivolously, please only do so if you feel you must, and let the individual make the call. I doubt the outcome would be any different.

Linda

Chris has contacted me and given me permission to post here his words at seeing part of this thread:


I also apologize to Chris if I've made my interpretation of his messages to me and actions sound as if he had done something irrational and purely out of emotion.

I apologize. That turned out to be a hypothetical I asked of Laird, and in no way was meant to imply that is what happened. Nor would I expect that to happen. I would expect of Chris exactly what you described - that he simply let Laird know of his response to Laird's actions, without demands. But I can see now that it could be taken as though I wanted to imply that he did make demands, and I'm very sorry if anyone took it that way.

Linda

Linda, I find your elusiveness here truly odd considering how hard you press others on things they "believe" or "feel".

I most certainly hope I don't do that! I ask questions, but no one is obliged to answer, and I wouldn't press anyone for an answer over and over, as you have done. Especially on something personal. And I've already given some reasons in this thread, as well as the "other topics" thread. I'm not sure why that isn't enough already. Although if you have judged that it isn't enough, then it shows that I'm right to worry about you and others trivializing things that are important to me in order to run roughshod over my rights. 

I find this whole thing odd quite frankly.  Put it this way, I would have readily joined and participated in this community from day one had there been a "no mass post deletions" policy in place.  I'm assuming Chris, Linda and others would have stayed away based on their reactions to this thread.  Its a perspective I don't understand.  Pretty simple.

Actually, I doubt I would have given it any thought, if there was a "no mass post deletions" policy advertised here. It's not something I've engaged in before, so I may not have understood any need for it. But I would have fought for Chris' right to delete his posts, even if I hadn't followed suit. Sometimes you need something to happen to yourself to understand it.

Linda

[Laird]

If for some reason, this becomes a habit - I delete posts willy nilly (and I am on a forum where there are people who do just that) - other people can adjust their habits in response. Maybe nobody will respond to me. Maybe people will make a point of quoting my posts.

Or maybe people will appeal to moderators (on behalf of the community) to have restrictions placed on willy-nilly deletions... which is kind of what's motivated this thread...

you and others have given me no reason to think that you are capable of making that judgement for me.

Well, that's the thing: it wouldn't be for you, it would be for the community as a whole. If it were for you (alone), we wouldn't bother, because presumably you know which judgements are in your own best interests.

Or maybe people will appeal to moderators (on behalf of the community) to have restrictions placed on willy-nilly deletions... which is kind of what's motivated this thread...

I’d just like to confirm that this thread did not come about as a result of any complaints by me directly to you or Ninshub. I complained in open threads about deletions, but did not push for any action.

I was rather surprised when I heard about the poll.