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

what we’re the circs?

I've no idea. Something quite mundane I think.

[Laird]

I don't see any option besides "View Poll Results."

Ah, I see the problem now. There's a per-usergroup setting "Can undo votes in polls?", which for the "Registered" usergroup was unchecked. I've checked it now, so hopefully you should now see an "[Undo vote]" link to the right of the subheading "You have already voted in this poll." If not, let me know, and I'll try to debug it.

I should certainly hope not. And don’t get me wrong it doesn’t upset me, I generally find that type of behaviour amusing. Think of Larkin and his frequent public pronouncements that he was putting someone or other on ‘ignore’ at the other place. There’s a delicious pomposity to the fragility. 

But, as you say, it’s not all about me... has anyone ever witnessed a mass deletion of posts that appeared justified, worthy, clever or heroic?

Well, certainly justified or worthy. Clever or heroic seems an odd standard, especially given that the vast majority of posts don't even fulfill those obligations, let alone the absence of those posts. Although I suppose there can be a certain bravery in taking an action which is known to be unpopular.

However, "you should have to do what I want, for any reason" (no one seems to feel that their purported reason needs to be supported) seems the very definition of pomposity when compared to "I should be able to do what I want, unless there is good reason not to [ETA], in my judgement". And I'm afraid that "I cannot be put to even the slightest inconvenience if ever I wish to revisit old conversations" wins the fragility battle over "I want to make it easier on myself to let go of petty grievances".

Flouncing is something different, though. That can be fun to watch.

Linda

[Laird]

Seems like barely anyone has voted, so it is hard to see how this poll can be considered accurate?

Just going back to this comment, which I'd mentally flagged but not done the corresponding research on until now:

Since this thread (and its included poll) was started, 38 registered members have visited the site whilst logged in. Thirteen of those logged-in members have voted on the poll.

A participation rate of 13 out of 38 doesn't seem too bad to me, although I certainly wouldn't claim any expertise in the area of polling.

[ETA: and that's not even taking into account the threefour members who could have voted but haven't, though they have indicated their preferences: Ian, Max, Typoz, and myself, which brings the total of those who have expressed their views if not explicitly voted to 17 rather than 13.]

[Laird]

"I should be able to do what I want, unless there is good reason not to"

Yep. That's pretty much what I've been advocating for in this thread.

[ETA. To elaborate: where a "good reason not to" includes "that I will destroy the continuity and integrity of the thread in which I'm 'doing what I want' just because of the way I'm feeling; a feeling which is temporary, though the actions I undertake whilst feeling that way are permanent".]

Just going back to this comment, which I'd mentally flagged but not done the corresponding research on until now:

Since this thread (and its included poll) was started, 38 registered members have visited the site whilst logged in. Thirteen of those logged-in members have voted on the poll.

A participation rate of 13 out of 38 doesn't seem too bad to me, although I certainly wouldn't claim any expertise in the area of polling.

[ETA: and that's not even taking into account the threefour members who could have voted but haven't, though they have indicated their preferences: Ian, Max, Typoz, and myself, which brings the total of those who have expressed their views if not explicitly voted to 17 rather than 13.]

Nope. Since I explicitly stated that I reject the poll, you cannot conclude that I have therefore voted. At most, mine could be regarded as a spoiled paper, though in the UK we also are familiar with the concept of deliberately not voting at all. The correct conclusion then is to not assume that I even saw the ballot paper, let alone voted.

[Laird]

I explicitly stated that I reject the poll

Well, that's quite confusing. You have asserted that the poll is an attempted power-grab, presumably indicating that you reject the "No" and "Not unless" options. If you don't, then, endorse the "Yes" option, I'm not really sure what we have left...

A participation rate of 13 out of 38 doesn't seem too bad to me, although I certainly wouldn't claim any expertise in the area of polling.

It depends upon the purpose of the poll. A response rate of 34% means you have a strong response bias, so your results will not be representative of the opinions among the members.

However, I was under the impression that the poll was serving a different purpose. You wanted to find out, before you changed anything, whether or not anyone here would be strongly opposed to those changes. In that case, once you find out that more than one person feels strongly about the changes, that should be sufficient to drop the matter, regardless of response rate. Rather than a poll, think of it as a focus group.

Are you planning on going ahead with this anyway, based on majority rule? It may be interesting to find out what a forum without MaxB, Sciborg, Typoz, Brian, and a few other prolific posters would look like. Not for me, though.

Linda

It's a "loaded question" - a question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.

Someone who rejects the poll does not agree with the question-begging presupposition that it is appropriate to subject this issue to majority rule or opinion.

Linda

[Laird]

Someone who rejects the poll does not agree with the question-begging presupposition that it is appropriate to subject this issue to majority rule.

It seems, though, that the only alternative you propose to a general public consultation (which includes but is not limited to this poll) is, as I suggested earlier: "Screw it, just make an executive decision to assume that it doesn't matter".

Your response to my suggestion indicates that I was correct: you view anybody who disagrees with you as a "whiner", and you seem to think that we (forum moderators/founders) should just override the views of "whiners" without even giving them a voice.

The approach we have taken, on the other hand, has given you a (strong) voice, so it's hard to understand your willingness to silence the voices of those who disagree with you. It certainly seems to be a one-sided approach, much like your approach of (paraphrased) "I'll delete any and all of my posts that I care to, and screw anybody who doesn't like it" is one-sided.

[Edited to add " (paraphrased)"]