Deleting threads...
 

So, a thread from yesterday was deleted, apparently. There was nothing offensive in it, so I can only assume that the thread starter deleted it (or perhaps asked a mod/admin to do it). I know that thread starters used to have the ability to delete their own threads, and I assume that power still exists.

I would like to ask, in the strongest terms possible, that this power be taken away. Once a thread is started, once we post, it becomes ours just as much as theirs. Sure, if something in the thread is offensive, or extremely personal/sensitive, I think it's ok to delete it if requested. But the thread starter should not have the unilateral power to delete, and if they request a mod/admin to delete, that mod or admin should only do so if there's a very good reason.

It's extremely annoying to put time and energy into responding to a thread numerous times, only to have someone decide for whatever arbitrary reason they don't want to play anymore.

I agree. Maybe set the post limit to 2 or 3 posts, but once it gets to a certain length, it shouldn't be removed unless it needs to be.

Which thread was it?

The property line dispute.

I am seriously annoyed that I took the time and effort to give the issue some serious thought, and to compose answers that tried to provide good advice, and all that time goes "poof" because the OP decided, for whatever reason, that he no longer wanted the thread to exist.

I'd agree with that. If he didn't want it to exist, either don't post it in the first place or delete it quickly. If he didnt' want to participate, then stop participating.
He can always go back and edit it too, as an option.

Here's a reason why I think it is wrong. Many people went through the effort to discuss "adverse possession" as a concept. Let's say 6 months from now, someone wants to know about adverse possession, and does a search. The posts that we made should show up. We took the time to write them, and they should not disappear, they should become part of the "knowledge base" that exists on these forums. If the OP doesn't like what people are saying, he's more than welcome to edit out his posts, but he shouldn't have the power to take our time and effort and expertise and make them disappear.

I'm with LurkerDan on this - unless there is something offensive, such as a personal attack or other violation of forum rules, a thread should not be deleted on the say-so of the OP, especially if people other than the original poster have made some investment in the thread/issue. It shouldn't be up to the OP to simply delete a thread just because he/she doesn't like the way it's going.

I completely agree with this. I'm still P.O.'d by the loss of the 2,000+ post long Buffy thread.

I agree as well, but nothing was done in past issues.

I really think we need a forum rule that no threads over XX posts can't be deleted by the OP. Warning first offense. Suspension Second. Banning third.

The idea that a thread starter "owns" a thread makes no sense to me at all. If they can delete it, why not give them full moderation powers over the thread? (Suspension, banning, etc). :lol:

With our "search", chances are it still won't show up. ;)

<b>LurkerDan</b>, I think just about everyone here agrees with you on this issue, and we've complained about it many, many times over the years.

It's close to the point where I'd support vigilante justice on this issue. Once someone is caught doing this, he should go on a public shaming list, and the community should just never respond to any threads he ever starts again. I don't normally condone such behavior, but this happens way too often, and we need to find a way to stop it. Whenever I catch someone doing it, he immediately goes on my Ignore List as a reminder. Deleting the posts of other forum members (unless it's a mod/admin enforcing a rule violation) is just about the most disrespectful thing you can do on a forum like this, and IMO, it's far worse than the dreaded "personal attack", for which we have many rules.

I'm guessing the reason this has never been fixed is that vB does not have a built-in setting to accommodate this need?

das

I didn't spend nearly as much time as LD did in the thread, but I did find the information contained within to be really useful, and now people won't be able to reference it if/when it comes up again.

-p

That might make it tough to pull the thread back up, but in no means precludes having a rule against doing it.

I like the idea of a "Public Shaming List." :lol:

Ok, add Struz to the public shaming list then.

But seriously, why can't the mods, admins, and or the big cheese weigh in on this? Like Josh says, just because the forum software doesn't handle it doesn't mean there can't be a rule against it...

Another vote for a pubic shaving list. :up:

that thought did occur to me! :lol:

It does seem quite odd that one can delete a long post, but cannot edit the title of said post.

Perhaps the mods can undelete the post in question.

Poor Thor. He'd better hope this isn't applied retroactively.

I remember that! :lol:

But deleting your posts isn't a problem. It's deleting a thread that is the problem (which I guess means the only post you shouldn't be able to delete is the original one, that one you can edit to nothing if you so choose).

first I don't think there's any type of "built" in protection. we can either allow people to delete, or not delete. there's no "do not allow to delete after X amount of posts or time" we allow people to delete threads, because people make mistakes, people decide to delete a thread after they've sometimes asked a question and got the answer they want.. sometimes people will notice a mistake and just delete their post and make it again etc..there might be some addon... if you notice a thread that's got useful information, email a mod or admin and it can be undeleted, but if it's just some useless thread where it turned for the worse and you people just want to see the funny comments or throw shit at the original poster, and they delete it..well..maybe that's a hint that it went too far..anyways this only happens a few times a year so i'm not sure it's something that will be changed..

Then take away the power entirely. It shouldn't fall upon people to have to ask a thread be undeleted. If a person wants a thread deleted, they can email a mod/admin for that. If they make a mistake, they can always edit out their posts too. It happens all the time. Or, in the alternative, as Josh has pointed out, just because the software doesn't allow for something doesn't mean DVDTalk can't make a rule about it. Nothing in the software prevents personal attacks or multiple accounts, yet DVDTalk has strict rules against those.

Nothing in the thread I am talking about "went too far". I honestly don't know why the OP felt the need to delete it. I do know that lots of people were giving good advice and he was ignoring the advice and worse, getting annoyed that some people weren't giving him the advice he wanted to hear. But there was nothing exceptional about the thread, there was nothing that would make an objective person think it needed to be nuked.

In any case, a number of people here have stated a rather strong opinion, and apparently this opinion has been expressed before. It is extremely frustrating to put time and effort into answering a question then have it all go poof. I don't think you should be so dismissive about it.

If, as pilot suggests, DVDTalk doesn't care about this issue, then they shouldnt care about a public shaming list, right? I mean, if people have the right to delete threads with no repercussion, then we should have the right to inform others.

Pilot or someone else, I don't want to get into trouble, so I'll ask for permission: any objections to a public shaming list? It would just be a thread, and people get added if they do this. Those of us who care can have a link to the thread in our sigs...

LurkerDan is going to delete this thread, isn't he?

Yes we have rules against attacks, etc.. This doesn't really fall in line with that in my opinion ..People here have the option to delete a thread if they don't like it, because we give people that ability... Just because other people don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed... I'm not being dismissive, but we give people the right and permission to delete a thread.. Like I said before, it's easier on the mods & admins to allow people to delete, instead of not allowing.. It's too much trouble on our part to delete threads that people screw up all the time..and like I said before, this doesn't happen *that* often to warrant a change in my opinion.. I understand that people may not like it, but everybody can't have their way..Maybe X can chime in here but I don't think it's going to change..

I did not suggest we do not care about this issue. And a "public shaming" list is not advised. That will just create further problems. People will delete threads for fun just to piss off others. And it's not fair to be "publicly" ridiculed for something they are allowed to do by the forum rules, while it maybe annoying to some..

Pilot, I appreciate you taking the time to answer. But with all due respect, I think that's very weak. There are rules for all sorts of things, personal attacks was just an example. But to continue with the example, there's no inherent reason for a personal attack rule, many forums don't have them. The reason it is there is because it makes this a better place for everybody, including the mods. So just because this is not the same as the personal attack doesn't mean it isn't analogous.

You said "just because people don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed". But then you use completely circular logic. It's allowed so it should be allowed; it's not like personal attacks because people are allowed to delete threads, because we allow them and we don't allow personal attacks. Well, we get that, that's not a reason to not consider a change to that rule. There's no reason that there couldn't be a rule against it, or against deleting a thread once it reaches a threshold number of posts. It doesn't happen that often you say, but that cuts both ways. If it doesn't happen that often, instituting such a rule wouldn't cause much hardship for mods, while it would keep people from doing it in egregious circumstances. I and others spent a lot of time giving pretty detailed legal advice to someone, why should it be ok for that person to just decide to throw all of our time and effort away? That's the issue here, and that's the issue you have not really addressed.

And yes, I would like that particular thread undeleted.

The mods and admins have been considering this subject since the issue arose. Badgering pilot about it isn't going to accomplish anything (other than letting me laugh at him for trying to respond here before we had finished discussing it. :))

I can tell you one thing, we're not going to have a public shaming list. That certainly would make this issue look more like one of trying to punish somebody instead of wishing to have one's posted wisdom available for posterity.

We have very few instances of this situation occurring. The last one was probably about six months ago and involved a quite lengthy thread of general interest. People complained about it being deleted, we looked at the value of the thread overall and decided overruling the thread creator and restoring it was the right thing to do. We have to weigh this rare occurrence against the benefit of being able to delete threads provides our members (it's done on a regular basis, much more than you would think) and the amount of work it would generate for mods who would keep being asked to delete or correct threads being started incorrectly and duplicate threads.

When that popular thread was deleted a while back I recall people deciding that they would be more careful when posting in a thread started by that person. That seems to me the best way to handle it. If somebody burns people by deleting their important posts they won't post in that person's threads again. And that person will get less responses when they ask for them.

If some of the posts made in the recently deleted thread were so useful as a searchable reference for our members I see no reason why they can't be recreated in a thread dedicated to that subject. It could be started by someone who everyone is confident won't delete it.

you answered your own question....he didn't hear what he wanted to, and further got mighty a-holish with people who called him on his crap. He took his ball and went home.

There could be some reasonable circumstances for people who want their thread deleted. Like the Betho case, I think she had their infamous thread deleted after a while because she was embarrassed about it and was getting too much crap from some members. So even if she didn't have the ability to delete the thread herself, I think any mod would have deleted it for her if she asked.

The best case of how things worked out was when Terrell accidently deleted a long SW thread and everyone was screaming at him but our hero pilot was able to bring it back. :)

I object. ;) It's a terrible idea, and we really can't allow that kind of stuff here. I was more expressing my frustration than suggesting something we could <i>actually</i> do. Although in many ways, it's hardly different from a "Bad Trader List", we still can't do it.

That said, I do think we should have the following rights as members:

1) If we observe someone deleting a useful thread in a childish manner, we should be allowed to peacefully point out the thread topic and the member who did it in Feedback. No grandstanding or calling the guy out, but a notice nonetheless.

2) If we observe an offending member who has burned us before starting a thread on a topic we would like to discuss, we should be allowed to start our own duplicate thread on the same exact topic without admonition from the mods/admins. If these members are not going to be punished for deleting our posts, we should not be punished for finding reasonable methods to protect them.

While this is a private forum, for the sanity of all, members should have some "ownership" of their posts. If we cannot enforce this through the forum software in a way that appeases all, we deserve some level of reasonable latitude to protect those posts from people who seek to abuse the system and harm the community.

If, as the mods/admins claim, this is a rare problem, then I don't think it is unreasonable to request these 2 things be allowed when it does crop up.

das

In a thread a few months ago on this subjuect, RandyC said:

Would changing the settings so that threads couldn't be deleted after, say, 24 hours take care of most of the nuisance issues you guys have mentioned (duplicate threads, etc.)?

I just don't think it's right that one member can delete so many other people's posts. It may not happen often, but it seems to happen regularly and it is very frustrating.

We've been discussing that setting.

In the two thread deleting cases I know of over the last 6+ months that time limit would have prevented only one of the threads from being deleted. And that thread is the one I undeleted anyway. Also, that time setting affects other timings as well, not just the time you can delete a thread. So I'm not sure that would be the answer.

I don't think anybody should be allowed to delete threads unless they're a mod. If I made a thread and then didn't want it, I could email a mod to delete it. Not like it would happen THAT often I think. I too am still mad about the mega-long "Buffy" thread getting deleted a while back, I thought changes had been made then but I guess not. Anyway, that's my 2¢.

I'm puzzled about the "Buffy" thread. It would have been restorable if anyone had noticed in any kind of timely manner. Did nobody notice until the forum was pruned?

BTW, I counted 14 threads deleted by the thread creator in the last day. A couple because they went unexpectedly downhill fairly rapidly, a couple because they were dups, and the rest because they had outlived their usefullness and people were cleaning up after themselves.

Well, when I noticed it was missing I had no idea that anything could be done about it. It was probably too late at that point, but I don't think the average DVDTalker is aware that threads can be restored by contacting mods. I only found out later when I posted in the other thread referenced above. Who knows how many people looked for the Buffy thread and gave up in silence?

BTW, it had been active as late as 7/05, and was missing by 12/05.

ETA: Maybe someone here knows how long something stays in Google's chache? In 12/05 remnemts of the thread could be found there, but by now they are gone. (I saved what I was able to dig up at the time, if anyone wants it.)

Would a 24 hour rule have allowed for most or all of those deleteions?

Was that the thread where she waxed poetic about being anally penetrated? Or something else?

She waxes her what now?

I like thread deletion because the threat of it should serve as a scare tactic to get you blowhards to start getting your point across in threads within 5 sentences instead of your usual 30. :)

I'll weigh in with a contrary opinion - I don't think it's that big of a deal when my posts are deleted. I don't consider them my property or an online collections of my writings or anything like that. If DVDTalk went down tomorrow, the last thing I'd be concerned about is recovering my posts.

Maybe I view the forum differently than some of you, because taking time to respond to a thread is time I'm willing to spend. If the thread is deleted, so what? That's almost the same as a thread falling off the front page.

I guess I see these posts as not really being "real," so it doesn't bother me when they disappear. Seriously, how many of you go searching for your writings from months or years ago. I'm sure I've responded to hundreds of threads that I don't even remember. It just doesn't seem to be worth getting worked up over, especially if it happens as infrequently as the mods say it does.

Consider this a vote for "I'm fine with the current policy."

If this thread proves anything, it's that the "President of Otterville" is purely a figurehead.




;)