We Should Be Able to Delete Our Threads and Posts!
 

I really would like to have the capability of deleting threads I have started and posts I have written back again.

I am the originator of a thread that has seen some unpleasant flaming. I would therefore like to delete it as I used to be able to, since the original question I had when I posted the thread has been answered and yet the unpleasantness goes on and on and on.

For my taste, losing the ability to delete something I have originated on FlyerTalk is too draconian of a change. I realize that having capability of deleting opens us to the possibility of inadvertently deleting something we may have wanted to keep around, but I personally think it's a capability we ought to have.

Thanks for listening. You guys do a great job and FT is a great discussion forum.

I absolutely disagree. Dgolds, as soon as anyone else posted to that thread, it ceased to be yours, hence you should have no right to delete it. What you may consider unpleasentness may not be considered so by others. If you could delete the thread, the useful information you admit is in it would be lost to everyone else. If the webmaster considers the thread inappropriate, it can be locked. I very much welcome the recent change stopping threads being deleted - it is a shame a user can no longer delete their own posts but that is an acceptable price.

Regardless of whether one can delete an entire thread or not, I should be able to delete my contributions to the thread. I am not able to delete this for example - it says only forum leaders can delete this. This is a bug, not a feature.

[This message has been edited by pgupta011 (edited 09-27-1999).]

Agreed pgupta, it isn't great. Hovever, you can delete all your text (and hence effectively your post) leaving only a full stop as a 'minimum data set'.

In a similar thread under technical problems, Bryan at Webflyer wrote
[This message has been edited by james (edited 09-27-1999).]

.

[This message has been edited by james (edited 09-27-1999).]

james: I certainly respect your opinion, and agree with your point about useful information being lost if the whole thread were to be deleted. Maybe there's some middle ground to be found between deleting the whole thread and leaving it as is.

In this particular case, the thread has devolved into name calling. I can't see why anyone would consider that part of the discussion worth having around. One of my favorite things about FT is the minimal amount of this kind of stuff. I know of plenty of places I could go on the Usenet if I wanted to read or participate in flaming.

Personally, I would rather delete the entire thread even at the risk of losing useful content in it if it would douse a mini-flame war. Part of the reason for my opinion is that I have seen this sort of situation in the past on other bulletin boards; participants (not the flamers) get tired of wading through the garbage and tune out, which is detrimental to the bulletin board as a whole.

Any ideas for a constructive, in-between solution?

There's that james "." again! Recall I used a "?" New signature's!

Vakid points from all posters. Simplistic as it may seem, how about stopping the unpleasantness instead, so that we have no problem to try to solve. Let's not abuse our hosts!

Otherwise our hosts can delete an especially egregious post or even retract posting priviledges by withdrawing the password match.

dgolds - your comments above are very interesting and thought provoking. I do agree that the high signal-noise is a great asset to FlyerTalk. I am inclined to say that users who post insults and flames should be strongly encouraged not to do so and to edit out the contents of their existing posts. This could include warnings fom the moderators and private email from those who are offended by the post. I am very sympathetic to your point that flames and junk posts discourage new users but hopefully there is so little of it here at the moment that noone will actually be discouraged. It may become a bigger problem in the future as the board continues to grow.

I suppose the best solution I can think of is careful pruning of offensive posts by an administrator. I have less of an objection to individual posts being censored than to the deletion of entire threads where some of the content is valuable. Much as I don't like it, I belive it will become an uncomfortable practical necessity if the board is to function as well as it does now, in future.

All this would have to be done in a framework of clearly defined, public guidelines. The board already automatically censors foul language, for instance. As a possible scenario, offensive comments, with no frequent-flyer content could be deleted in respose to a complaint. In a case where a post contains both useful information and flame, the moderator could give the poster a choice of whether to edit the offending sections or have the post deleted.

All this makes me uncomfortable to varying degress but I do see it as a balancing act between practical necessity and freedom to say what one likes. As I have stated previously, I wish the administration would use their power to lock threads more often, when they start to get out of hand. If that is done, someone has to deliberately begin a new thread if they want to restart an arguement. It then becomes obvious to all users who the antagonists are.

I assume in extreme cases, the board is subject to the libel and defamation laws of the United States (and Colorado?).

An alternative solution is a technical one that has been mentioned before - a squelch function that enables your preferences to 'ignore' the posts of a specific user. Thus you have a filter against individuals who continually spam or flame.

It's certainly a challenging question dgolds - and thank you for encouraging me to consider it. I will post again if I have any flashes of inspiration.


[This message has been edited by james (edited 09-28-1999).]

My vote would be for more aggressive locking of threads. (I don't care @ all for people being able to reduce entire threads to the dustbin.) But that might require more active vigilance by someone in an official capacity from Webflyer; does such oversite actually exist?

james: Your post strongly echoes suggestions I made a couple of months ago, but they didn't generate any interest at the time. See http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/Foru...ML/000083.html

At this point, we are not a moderated board. There is informal policing (Commander Catcop) but no official guidelines for posting, at least that I am aware of.

As it is possible to join FlyerTalk without an e-mail address, or with a bogus e-mail address, notifying individual members can be problematic. I personally think it should be a requirement that you have to submit a valid e-mail address to participate in FT, but many others disagree with me on that. I participate on listservs which obviously require an e-mail address to join; I also read Usenet news, which requires no address verification. There's no "one right way" to do it. However, the listservs are far less susceptible to flame wars than the newsgroups.

BTW, for your reference, the thread I am referring to is http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/Foru...ML/000146.html

I wonder if someone from InsideFlyer would like to join the discussion. Randy, Brian, anyone out there?

[This message has been edited by dgolds (edited 09-28-1999).]

Thanks dgolds, yes we do seem to agree quite a lot about how to proceed.

In the first thread there, I seem to have got a little excited http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif That was me misinterpreting and overreacting to the preceeding post. That matter has all been resolved now! http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I see what you mean about the second thread, although the first 75% of it seems to be good stuff. I can also think of another thread involving some of the same (main) players where exactly the same thing happened. Those with long memories will be with me and that too got acrimonious. I think there is one (possibly two) post that is an obvious candidate for ammendment or deletion!

In my post above, when I refer to moderators or administrators, I mean Michael/Bryan/WebFlyer Personnel at the moment, although I note that the board has the capacity for a moderator for each thread. Also, is it not the case that a valid email address must be submitted to FlyerTalk to register, but it can be cocealed from other users? If that is not the case, it should be, enabling moderators to contact or warn users. Presumably, a first-issue password could be mailed to the address, just as it is when a password is changed.

I had forgotten that the squelch feature was your idea, dgolds - good one. I have also posted previously, pleading for a good FAQ but of course these things take time and effort to prepare.


[This message has been edited by james (edited 09-28-1999).]

[This message has been edited by james (edited 09-28-1999).]

I'm so confused. I've been skipping around from forum to forum a lot these past few months and I've never seen any flaming. In fact, FlyerTalk members are one of the most civilized bunch of humans (and cats) that I've ever found on talk boards. Not trying to be a rah! rah! cheerleader--just haven't seen any flaming whatsoever.

I'd love to join in, but can't at the moment due to excessive workload. I'll say this: I am in close agreement with james' position, with some variation. I'll post more tonight.

Please, at least allow the "studders" to delete the double and triple posts of identical text in the same category!!!

Ah, Shangri La. It was wonderful while it lasted ... A place where everyone was above average elite and flames only occasionally shot out of jet turbines and were duly reported.

I migrated to this board from the Compuserve Travel Forum because of the more active participation by its gentle members. With increasing exposure and growing numbers here, some of the features of Compuserve boards seem to make a great deal of sense:
1 Actual names are required. Mine is a given. I have always felt that anonymity led to lapses in taste and even flame wars though even 'named' participants get into ad hominem attacks, name calling and mud wrestling on occasion. 2 Sysops, some paid and many unpaid exercised control over content -with- the ability to delete threads or even trim them or graft stray branches. Banishment was a last resort. They of course followed written guidelines of behavior posted prominently.

For myself, I agree that once someone responds to an initial post it no longer 'belongs' to the originator. You can edit out your original post but it's just not nice to delete even unpleasant responses or exchanges. I do agree with giving that authority to a sysop who follows the rules. Will that happen? Ask Bryan with the excess workload. Can he do it? Not likely.

Volunteer sysops might be possible though I don't know how the software works or if it would accomodate them.

For myself I'll continue to ignore the obvious trolls and treat flames with cool logic or cold indifference.

Whaddaya say, Arturo?

Jim

I'd like to delete some threads. Have you seen some of those loud Hawaiian shirts Catman wears? http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

jimquan makes excellent points. The model he describes has been in use for years on CompuServe and AOL. The end users "moderate" discussion forums on a volunteer basis. That gives the administrators less work, and gives the users a chance to contribute.

I'm in agreement with the rest of you that deleting entire threads is too draconian of a way to handle the problem. I only mentioned it because had the same situation come up a month ago, it's what I would have done.

The point is, I think there ought to be some way to deal with these sorts of situations when they come up. FWIW, I was a volunteer sysop on CompuServe's Macromedia forum back in 94-95. I would be glad to volunteer for some sysop duty here, too.

jimquan and dgolds - I have only used Webflyer personnel in my examples above as that most closely reflects the current position. I appreciate that with workload and dare I say 'more important' duties, it is not practical for Michael and Bryan to moderate the whole board alone, every day.

[This message has been edited by james (edited 09-30-1999).]

IMHO, you guys are trying to solve a problem that doen't really exist. Maybe I'm naive but, aside from a few exceptions that are notable only because of their rarity, I don't really see a need for flame-retardent procedures at this point. But then I only check the areas that I care about...maybe I've missed something.

Flyertalk HAS become more popular in the past few months, with lots of new faces. But despite this, I would love to see FT retain it's small-town-feel. And every small town has its ocassional fued and wacko, but that doesn't mean you declare martial law.

I, too, have seen what flame wars can do in the newsgroup world and if I thought that were starting here, I'd be among the first to want to stop it, but for now, peer pressure and a sense of decorum seem to be enough...

As for deleting posts, the edit feature is sufficient. As for deleting threads, my vote would be no...

I think you're right about the current position Matt. I'm thinking about what I expect (worry) will happen in the next 6-12 months.

If you check under technical problems, I had to write Bryan and Michael to get four threads that I posted under the WRONG FORUM!

We should have some capacity. Or at least if we delete something it goes into an archive system that if someone wants it back can write WebFlyer and get the thread mailed to their e-mail address.

DGolds: No one should be posting anything nasty on a thread written by such a nice gentleman as yourself. If you want I can send my cats to scratch them.

PremEX: Hawaiian shirts are all i'm going to be wearing at a certain get together we're going to. In fact I got shorts to match! http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Chauming's having a mini-flame war in the AMEX forum: http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/Foru...ML/000146.html

If it comes to a vote, I am for deletion, since I prefer leaving the decision about "cleaning up" the board to the board members and this doesn't seem a terrible way to do it. With the delete feature, of course, came the implicit assumption that the originator owned the thread, since they could delete it. I posted under the working assumption that the thread could be removed.

Matt W.: I certainly respect your opinion. As always, you make good points. The degree to which a board is moderated is largely a matter of taste.

In my experience, volunteer moderators work well. Done properly, it doesn;t strike me as the imposition of "martial law"; more like having a referee around. It's not unlike what Cmdr Catcop does, just formalizes the role and gives it a little more oomph. But I can definitely see why some would prefer we not have it.

FWIW, I've seen more flaming here this summer than any listserv I'm on, and a couple of them have very large numbers of subscribers. OTOH, compared to the Usenet, we're rank amateurs when it comes to flaming.

Catman: Get Yaz and Eddie into the fray? No way! I wouldn't want to see either of those two sweeties hurt.

I like the ability to delete posts, but is it really needed? It can't be done in life, after all. If anyone knows different, please email me as I have a few episodes I wouldn't mind erasing http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif.

I am in complete agreement with james that the originator of a thread should not be able to eliminate the entire thread. It's not the property of the originator. In fact, I'd argue that posts, once they're POSTED, aren't the sole property of the originator any longer, either. If the ability to delete individual posts can't be separated from the ability to delete entire threads, then it's reasonable to forbid deletion. Editing down to a period seems to work.

I find some of the other comments here about moderation interesting. Some of you may know that a couple of months ago I drafted an informal proposal to turn over the government of several aspects of the board to FTers. I didn't post it but I did have it circulated to a few (more than a few) "senior members" of the board for feedback. I was surprised when I got no responses. I let the matter drop then, though it doesn't have to stay dropped. I think any future idea for governance should come from "out there," but Matt's words should be heeded.
Flamers and cranks should certainly be tolerated as long as possible. They are a part of this thing, too, though few would mind if they left. Local flavor, you know?

Thanks bryan. I think, like Nanook, that most FT's try to ignore the nonsense, considering it to be orelevant stimuli and hoping it will go away. That's what I do.

Once again, why not have some rules explicitly stated up front? Wht not a "signed" agreement by users to abide by them to retain participatory rights? Even within a broad self-regulating community of the type Randy & Co appears to prefer, this would be helpful and quite workable.

-Are multiple handles permitted?
-Is personal criticism permitted?
-Are friendly exchanges like "Thanks" etc., between FT's to be discouraged?
-Is their a broadband problem to be considered so as to limit our posts?
-Is a certain degree of anonymity permitted or actively discouraged?
-Are repeated exchanges between "undisclosed" family members/close friends permitted?
-What is the policy regarding tradgeties and posting them on FT? Is this discouraged?
-Is it acceptable for FT's to disclose personal information regarding other FT's specifically against their will?

I would not knowingly and willfully violate any of the "rules" of FT or any others for that matter. Yet, I've previously been attacked for having too many posts and this occurred again yesterday. I was alledged to have used multiple handles and roundly criticized for that as well despite the fact that this seems to be routine on the boards. I was hounded and severely harassed because I conducted online conversations within FT threads among members of my family who choose to remain anonymous. I was mocked and publicly scolded on the boards for supposedly violating my anonymity! And so forth, and so on...!

If there is/are no rule(s)/guideline(s) established, then one is only left to "judge" retroactively the behavior of others. Laws are not imposed retroctively, nor are punishments applied in this manner.

I try, as mush as humanly possible, like most FT's, to be a good citizen of FT. Guidelines, however vague, would probably serve us all well. How could they hurt?

Waiting for a policy statement,
Thanks for listening,

Mark

I am usually for the non-moderation of boards and flame wars usually are pretty tame and burn themselves out. But when statements are made such as chaumings wish for someone to be murdered it goes beyond a normal flame war. (see the amex thread mentioned above). People like that need to be reprimended in some way as that is unacceptable. If it takes moderators then so be it. If the offender is booted there is nothing to prevent them from signing on again as a new user with different information. In this case a moderator would be helpful.

I find this board to be very enjoyable, humorous and informative so I will stay. Too bad there are a few bad eggs that try to ruin it.

As far as deleting posts and threads, once something is posted on a public forum it is no longer private and should not be able to be deleted. Editing your post is all that is needed. And having the ability to have at least one person able to delete posts and threads is great in cases such as catman posting in the wrong forum and then posting it in the right forum.

These are just my opinions.

There are two issues here - 1) deleting one's post, and 2) moderation issues. I think that one should be able to delete one's posts. One example is when Punki and others deleted their posts in avek00's thread. I thought it was pretty appropriate. And the other example is when by mistake multiple responses are posted or when they are posted to the wrong forum (recently I responded to something in AA, which really was a hotel issue and also discussed in the hotel forum). One can edit these posts to . or ?, but deleting is the right way.

With respect to moderating the group, I would not trust any poster or group of posters to act in that capacity. But I can accept (grudgingly) the role of Inside Flyer to do so.

The best thing to do is to avoid these flames. I was myself ridiculed in the Amex thread, as being clueless on something that I consider myself fairly knowledgeable. The best response is not to respond at all.

pgupta - Bryan has explained at least twice that the software does not allow deletion of individual posts without being able to delete whole threads. He has gone on to say that not deleting threads takes precedence so we have to lose the capacity to delete posts. In an ideal world your solution is obviously better, but it isn't actually possible.

You are absolutlely right that avoiding flames is the best thing to do and a dignified silence is often the best approach. I very much hope that that remains the attitude of 99.5% of users here and that the trolls stay under their bridges.

[This message has been edited by james (edited 09-30-1999).]

I liked the old "world" better. I do not know why the new scheme of things is better.

Bryan: I would be willing to help review your proposal. I would also be willing to work with a group to come up with a FAQ answering some of the questions Doc poses.

Doc: I would be glad to discuss some of the questions you raise off line, but you don't have an e-mail address in your profile. If you're interested, please e-mail me privately.

... just neglect the trolls and don't feed them ... (I learned that 'lesson' months ago). Let them, and their posters die in the hyper-space-desert.

I, for sure, would never want to become any kind of 'official' monitor - God bless the one getting such a 'job'.

As general rules, the 10 commandements (and some Flyertalk-specific explanations under faq may be) or the basic rules of any other culture/religion should do it.

I will probably never understand, why, for the 10-commandements, 2 stones (or one piece of paper) is sufficient - but for the rules of mails and emails we should/would need books ...

(originally I posted ONE stone - and was proven wrong, see the next two postings ... http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif )


[This message has been edited by Rudi (edited 10-01-1999).]

Rudi: There were two stone tablets. But, according to Mel Brooks, originally there were three - - -

"I have here fifteen [crash], ..er.. ten commandments" - - History of the World, Part I http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Rudi, the staute law of most countries I've visited is considerably longer than two tablets of stone! http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by james (edited 10-01-1999).]

yes - TWO http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Realizing that all the Webflyer folks are busy with other important matters and that this is not the most urgent concern, I'd just like to reiterate that I feel some posted rules/guidelines, right up front, would be useful.

Recently some FT's were chastised for soliciting referrals in various point incentive programs. I don't think it's necessarily the right thing to do personally and I have refrained from posting a current offer, but I'm not certain as to what, if any, official view FT has of this practice?

Today, in the "coupon connection" a request was made to have someone kindly purchase their tickets for them to Sydney, in exchange for a percentage of their future profits. Why not have a simple statement which disallows such solicitations if they are in fact forbidden?

Again, perhaps "common sense" addresses many of FT's collective concerns and they are self explanatory. Yet, while it may not be a very popular view, some brief rules would serve us all well and help avoid future difficulties, IMHO.

Thanks again for considering this request.

Regards,
Mark

Perhaps the ten commandments and the basic rules of any culture/religion are not enough Rudi.

I've witnessed various personal assaults/flaming and been assaulted/flamed myself in current FT threads. Believe me, I can take it! Yet the question remains, is there a policy or any intention to develop any policy regarding such matters- or is it going to become a free for all with every FT'er for themself?

Are we all to undertake multiple attack handles? I believe a clear policy is fast becoming more essential because some interpret a lack of response as tacit approval from the hosts. This is a serious impediment to the continued growth of FT as well as to the present sense of harmony/tolerance/community.

Five months later...

Re-posted from 2/3/00

Now that the upgrade is complete, and the cookies are working again in Netscape (thank you, FT team!), I'd like to ask the question again.

Can you please re-consider the "delete post" issue?

How about...

Posts can be deleted by the user ONLY if the post being deleted is not the initial one that starts a thread.

Does anyone have a problem with that??

Shadow - I believe the problem is that UBB is set up as an "all or nothing" system. You can set it so that a user can delete any of their own posts, including the first one in a thread (which deletes the whole thread). Or you set it so that no posts can be deleted. i.e. although your suggestion is very sensible, it isn't (wasn't) technically possible.