deleting posts

III · Post by **III** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:30 pm

so, with all the discussion about how deleting posts upsets the flow of a conversation, and creates chaos within what was an orderly thread, there was a discussion about actually disabling the edit function to prevent it.

is it proper, given that discussion, for admins to actively delete user posts on request? shouldn'y the users at least have to go through all the work of editing their posts, one by one, to do the deed?

i may be off base here. but it doesn't quite feel right...

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 12:00 am

Well, this is interesting. If you own your words, you should probably have
the right to rescind them.

Should the admins do it for you? I dunno. I'd vote for admin deletion of posts
*only* when they're illegal. Copyright infringement, pornography, death
threats.

I will grant (but not respect) the right of an individual poster to delete
things at will.

I think if you're that hell-bent on unsaying what you said (short of the
above three criteria), then you can fucking well do it for yourself.

But, you know, that's just me.

Kinetic II · Post by **Kinetic II** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 12:32 am

As the one who really got the post yanking stuff going, I want to speak up and agree with Precip on this. I feel it was not right for ALL of his posts to be yanked like that, this board imho serves as an electronic archive for BM's online discussions. Even the Joe Dunphy threads were left on the old eplaya and he is considered the worst of the worst...why couldn't Bradley Green's posts have been left? We have disjointed conversations now...some of the references in other threads have nothing to back them up....it's a mess.

I know coming from the former post revisionist master this sounds like I'm being a hypocrite. Yet I would go back and change one post, or change it to an apology. This goes way beyond that. Hell I guess I should have asked for the original K account to have been purged when I had the stalking mess.

I tried to show a little bit of consideration for keeping the flow of the board intact...a little selfishness is one thing but this was a massacre of the board, IMHO. What's next, WSPR's posts will vanish too? Where does it end?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 12:34 am

btw, this isn't a criticism of emily's action. i think she's wonderfully helpful and responsive. it's just a question of policy, and how involved the community should be in developing that policy, and will probably be discussed as long as this board is up and running...

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 12:38 am

> btw, this isn't a criticism of emily's action.

Absolutely. Not a criticism of actions taken. Merely a request to consider
what kinds of actions will be taken in future.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 12:58 pm

The whole "yanking posts" thing smacks of a hit an run mentality to me. If you have the balls to say something you should have the balls to leave something up. If you have a change of heart or opinion or whatever, feel free to say so.

And yes, it totally screws up the boards when this happens.

Sylvia · Post by **Sylvia** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:29 pm

I don't understand why an admin has to pull the posts. The edit feature lets us do it ourselves. I agree with those who say that if you regret posting a thought, you can and should remove it yourself. For one thing, it makes you feel better, and for another, it's one less chore for the admins, who do enough.

I'll cop to having done this myself.

Cariapata · Post by **Cariapata** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 11:06 pm

Guerrilla tactics have their place. This is not one of them. This identiy pulling shouldn't have happened.

That being said the admins are being slammed no matter what they do. Besides bitching we've got to give them clear guidelines to work with, and cut them some slack. They are VOLUNTEERS after all and if this ceases to be fun they'll split and it could leave us with admins who nobody agrees with. Let's stop bitching and somehow find a way to make Emily and Technopatra's work easier.

III · Post by **III** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 8:27 am

>Besides bitching we've got to give them clear guidelines to work with, and cut them some slack.

this is what this thread (and section) is for. nothing here has been a bitch against any admin - it'[s just been suggested guidelines (with reasons) for future actions.

Cariapata · Post by **Cariapata** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 8:43 am

These threads are pretty constructive but yet there's only a few of us in here posting. Are we really in touch with what the community wants? I''m not so sure....are we rushing down the path towards rules and actually forcing a minority view onto the majority?

I know the admins need tools and guidelines to they can clean up the things we've spoken up about. But as I sit here aggressively looking this over and flip flopping back and forth I'm noticing that it's not drawing lots of attention. It's the old cliche of tempest in a teapot on display as the rest of the group seems content lurking, posting here and there, and avoiding the three areas of trouble: 2003 Theme, Beyond Belife, Experiences, and General Discussion.

I don't need a reply to this, it's just an observation really.

emily sparkle · Post by **emily sparkle** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 11:06 am

bradley had actually already edited all of his posts (11 total, 10 in the Larry Harvey death thread and one somewhere else) to say something along the lines of: i would like all my posts to be deleted from the eplaya. i'm being considered a troll and... something something something. i don't remember it now, and i don't have it in my cache.

honestly, i should have saved the text and quoted it in my message that explained that i had pulled them at his request. he'd already made the conversation disjointed by editing the posts.

don't worry, i'm not feeling attacked, but on the topic of us 'purging' someone's account at their request, there were only 11 posts. if there had been hundreds (as in other troll circumstances) it would have been a nightmare.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:40 pm

The time admins spend deleting posts (or logins) under the current scenario is minimal, but might tend to increase as more users discuss it as if it were a de facto feature of the bbs.

In none of the previously described scenarios will the world spin off its axis and/or all dairy products turn into buttermilk -- provided admins aren't tempted to use buggy cancelbots to automate their work.

Brad is a big boy and should delete or stand by his own content.

Deleted logins should remain "ghosted", ie visible but not active, along with posts in a thread, unless the login name itself or the thread content are at issue.

The main reason I objected to WSPR's posts was the login name -- arguably, hostile/insulting logins such as WillSmallPenisRoger, MarianHugeC*ntGoodell or BobDonkeyDickStahl should be blocked and all threads initiated under that login deleted ASAP simply to maintain the general order wrt to the most visible impact of that user.

Otherwise -- case-by-case basis.

Cariapata · Post by **Cariapata** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:52 pm

Bobdonkeydickstahl? WTF? Where did that come from? <SNORT!>

Keltoi · Post by **Keltoi** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 4:39 pm

Very valuable arguments from both sides of the fence on this controversial issue. When you have your rights taken away from you because your boss is the President of the United States and you fall under the military codes of conduct and your freedoms are restricted, you do appreciate the value of being able to speak your mind open and freely without major consequences to follow suit. I believe the edit button would be very nice tool to have handy.

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 10:48 pm

> as if it were a de facto feature of the bbs.

You keep doing that deliberately, don't you?

> Deleted logins should remain "ghosted", ie visible but not active

Which, by default, they do. Look up any of Kinetic's posts. There's no link
to the user profile, and it says Guest under the user name.

But yeah, I agree on all points.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:53 pm

It's simply about control. If we don't like what you say you are deleted. In other words: Conform or be cast out

III · Post by **III** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:59 pm

have you even *tried* to understand the issue here?

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 8:00 pm

After one post? I think not.

Whose hand is in your sock?

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:50 am

Cariapata, I appreciate the sentiment - oh I do so love it when you guys look out for us.

That said, I set up this folder specifically so we could get community feedback, and (try to) take nothing personally here. This is TOTALLY the place to air grievances, suggestions, solutions, and questions. I don't consider it bitching until folks start repeating themselves. Even then, my bitching tolerance is pretty high, because the impact of the passion behind it rarely escapes me.

We are dealing with another request to remove all of a user's posts, and are leaning towards not doing it ourselves. If you want to remove your posts, you should have to go through the grunt work of editing them out yourself. There is no plan to provide any easier option for deletion.

Personally, I like the earlier suggestion of having a grace period (I'd say something like 24 hrs, tho) before your posts become uneditable. I agree with Chai Guy and others that it should encourage folks to be a little more careful with their posts, knowing that they can't just go and yank them out later.

But this raises a problematic intellectual property issue - either it makes it feel like Burning Man, rather than each user, owns their content (noo!) or it requires the admins to have to do the deleting if anyone requests, because they can't do it themselves. Hm.

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:13 pm

> But this raises a problematic intellectual property issue - either it makes
> it feel like Burning Man, rather than each user, owns their content (noo!)
> or it requires the admins to have to do the deleting if anyone requests,
> because they can't do it themselves. Hm.

You couldn't edit your posts on the old eplaya, and though I wasn't around
when the feature was turned off, I never heard any complaints about the
LLC attempting to own our words.

This is an issue of usability rather than one of intellectual property rights.
Constant deletions interrupt the flow. I'd prefer that people be
responsible adults and only edit or delete their content when it's really
appropriate. Unfortunately that's not what's happening here. I'd settle for
a technological barrier to easy editing.

You're going to have to make a mod to do this anyway. Put in an
additional user privilege for deleting the content of posts. If someone's
adamant about removing content, enable the delete privilege. If I were
programming it, the function would replace post content with [Content
deleted by user on <date>]. This way the user can't go back and change
words maliciously, but can have his content removed in a way that's
under his control and not the admin's.

Cariapata · Post by **Cariapata** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:04 pm

A mee too post...but Precip's right. We didn't have an edit function on the old board and imho we don't need it here. Doing away with it alltogether would encourage people like myself to think before you post. Which is not a bad thing.

III · Post by **III** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:56 pm

>We didn't have an edit function on the old board

we did for a while, and there was great hue and cry when it went away (part of the joseph dunphy restructuring, if i recall). one of the benefits of editability is that you can clean up the flow in case of crossposts. one of the things that made people happy about going to this bbs (yes, there were some) was that edit ability returned.

my preferences, in sort of order:

1) provide a history function for each post, so that you can take a look at all of its previous incarnations, perhaps with diff highlighting. your words are still yours, but now you're accountable for all of them.
2) provide a time limited edit function. (1 hour? 24 hours? who knows)
3) as is now. eliminating your posts has social repurcussions, and generally only practiced by those on their way out (tawnee lynee, bradley green). i figure it's a small going away present to let them have the ability to erase at least the direct evidence.
4) eiminate the edit function. the edit function allows people to go back and fix the flow in the case of crossposts, or correct errors that don't become evident until seen in context. (i don't know why that happens, but it does). the disruptions due to not having an edit function are admittedly not as severe as deleting whole posts, but they are more pervasive, and affect more people who actually care about how their posts look.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Thu Mar 04, 2004 5:35 pm

Now that the edit function is gone, I was wondering if the suggestions offered by Trey are being taken into consideration for implementation?

III wrote: 1) provide a history function for each post, so that you can take a look at all of its previous incarnations, perhaps with diff highlighting. your words are still yours, but now you're accountable for all of them.
2) provide a time limited edit function. (1 hour? 24 hours? who knows)
3) as is now. eliminating your posts has social repercussions, and generally only practiced by those on their way out (tawnee lynee, bradley green). I figure it's a small going away present to let them have the ability to erase at least the direct evidence.

I left off the fourth because I think it is already implemented in a subliminal way.

III · Post by **III** » Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:07 pm

i'll note that my preferences are still in that order, with #4 being intentionally at the bottom of the list, indicating a position of undersireablity.

III · Post by **III** » Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:09 pm

(meant to add)

i believe they are working on #2. i don't believe there is a timelinne for release on that, though.

if it doesn't happen in a couple of weeks, perhaps we could go to #3?

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:20 pm

Yes, we are trying to find mod that accomodates #2. The closest we came is with what we have now - you have the option to delete your post until someone replies, then it is uneditable.

We are specifically looking for a mod that will allow you, say, 30-60 min of editing time before becoming uneditiable - that should cover the typos cases without allowing folks to mangle conversational flow.

We may need to hack it ourselves - if anyone's up for it...let me know.