Disappeared Threads...

I think you guys are missing the point here.

You are not moderators. You hamper the moderators jobs if you delete your threads willy nilly. You cause more problems than you solve.

By deleting the posts of others you are abusing something which we added for convenience. As such, I'm now going to take that away. From this point on, no one is going to be allowed to delete their own posts, which is really unfortunate, because you people have just created even more work for the moderators.

I'm dissappointed that so many of you feel it's your duty to censor and delete the posts of others, when the Mike, the moderator staff, and myself have gone to great pains to prevent just this kind of behavior.

Your rights do not take precedence over the rights of others, everyone is equal. I shouldn't be having to say this.

If you feel a thread has gone away from it's original topic, you are doing a disservice by taking matters into your own hands and deleting the thread. Instead of allowing us to fix the problem, you have completely ignored the moderator process. Thats unacceptable.

As for G6, for your past and current behavior, you've left us with no choice but to remove your posting privileges anyhow. Your post is the equivalent to getting fired, but saying "I quit!" just before you leave the building. The sole responsibility for your actions lies with you, and while I am sorry to have to do this, you really didn't leave us with any choice, especially when you ignored Mike and my warnings.

Spark

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com

Insert witty quip here
 
Ewok and others who hang out on the tactical forum: You have a legitimate issue that needs to be discussed and I've suggested a plan for how to go about that discussion in another thread: http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum32/HTML/001083.html

I'm not convinced that's the best way to go about it, only the best idea I can think of at the moment ... I hope somebody else can think of a better idea, or refine my suggestion.

Besides the issues of Ghostsix's posts there have been some posts by other people that ... um ... raise issues, too. The moderators of the tactical forum have always stayed in the background and taken a King Log approach; that's been their choice. I think some things have gotten out of hand now on that forum, though, and it's time to do something about it -- not necessarily deleting posts or banning members, but some kind of action is called for, IMHO. I would like to see an open meta discussion take place and maybe that will resolve the whole thing; maybe those few people who have been posting bigotry and starting religious flame wars and posting personal attacks on other members and other cultures will see the error of their ways and reform once they find out what other members think of what they've been posting.


If they don't and stronger action is necessary, at least it'll all have been discussed out in the open and everybody will have a chance to voice their thoughts and when (if) the moderators and administrators take action they'll know what the consensus is before they act....

The trouble with sending private email to an administrator is he gets 20 emails complaining about a thread, he sees a groundswell of opinion and deletes it, then 500 members rise up in arms about the unjustified censorship -- where were those 500 members who thought it was a perfectly good thread when the decision to delete it was being made? They didn't know there was any decision being considered ... it was all done in the dark, so the administrator never found out that apparent consensus of opinion was no consensus at all.... Remember the bitter controversy over the Tactical Nursery Rhymes thread on another forum? That's what happens when an administration tries to avoid controversy by making decisions privately....

Trying to avoid controversy by squelching all public discussion of meta issues is the surest way there is to create a bloody controversy. I think all the moderators on all the knife forums learned something from that one, though; I don't expect that to happen again ... not at Bladeforums, anyway.

I don't expect any 500 members to rise up in arms to defend the right to post bigotry, of course ... I'm just talking about general principles ... it's important to follow consensus procedures even when it's clear what the outcome is going to be, IMHO -- maybe especially then. We need to practice our negotiation skills on the easy ones or else when a hard one comes along we won't have the skills to handle it.

As I see it, what's happening right now is the controversy on the tactical forum is spilling over into the general forum, and most of the members who hang out here (and I think the moderators too) have no idea what's going on or where it's coming from. There's a lot of confusion here right now. There happens to be a big controversy going on right now in the general forum (which I'm having a lot of fun with, personally). It's set a lot of us on edge, though, and now when several members suddenly start flaming each other for no reason anyone who hasn't been following the tactical forum can see ... and those flames are posted in the threads where the general forum controversy is going on ... it's kind of like a border conflict that's just short of outright warfare but things are being kept under control ... barely ... and then suddenly some paratroopers involved in another conflict between two other countries are blown off course and land in the middle of that tense border situation ... and then the other side of that one sends their own paratroopers in, neither group of paratroopers having any interest in the border conflict, and neither side of the border conflict having any idea who these paratroopers are or who they're fighting ... it's not going to be easy to keep fingers out of trigger guards!

I'd like to get that whole thing back to the tactical forum and out of this forum ... I think holding any part of that discussion here will only confuse the issues.

I haven't been keeping up with the tactical forum very well myself lately, especially the last few days -- I'm having too much fun writing posts about testing flying saucer keys to see how good they are at chopping wood. I'm having so much fun here I hate to leave it to get into an unpleasant flame war over bigotry and rudeness ... but I suppose I'd better; we all have to do our part to make this place work, and I'm an active member of the tactical forum most of the time; I have a stake there to protect.

Let me tell you Harvey Jackins' definition of a leader: "A leader is someone who thinks about the needs of the group as a whole."

Think about that ... every member of a group can be a leader -- in fact, that's the ideal situation. Then every discussion is between leaders, who are all looking out for the needs of the group as a whole -- the only possible disagreement is over how to accomplish the needs of the group, and those questions can be resolved by discussion and reasoning. If someone has different goals than you do, you may never find agreement -- but if you have the same goal, all you have to discuss is the means....

-Cougar Allen :{)

P.S. Harvey Jackins is a psychologist, the founder of the Re-evaluative Counseling movement. I recommend his books highly to anyone who's looking for practical counseling methods.

-Cougar :{)
 
Spark, I think you're overreacting.

I think the question of delete privileges would have benefited from more discussion before your taking any action about it.

There are (1) owner/administrators, (2)moderators, (3) thread initiators, and (4) responders.

Nothing in the discussion so far IMHO has made a proper distinction between initiators and responders, especially between initiators and responding flamers.

Those of us who take the trouble to initiate conversations here naturally feel a type of ownership/responsibility that mere responders (especially those who flame) don't.

I know we aren't moderators, but we do nonetheless "own" at level the responders don't. IMHO

I think your unilateral canceling of delete privileges doesn't address this difference.

Of course, since you own the place you make the rules.
 
LD, Uncle Bill, if you can think of another solution, let me know.

Users deleting their own threads because they don't like the way it's going is an abuse of the privilege. If the only way to prevent that is to not allow users to delete their own posts, then them's the breaks. I'd rather clean up a double post than deal with people wondering why I or a moderator deleted a thread when it was really the originator who did it.

I've already petitioned the creator of the software to try to "fix" this issue. We'll see how that goes.

Regardless though, the fact remains: Deleting a thread by exploiting a loophole that allows you to delete your own posts is an abuse of the privilege and is unfair to those who have posted under it. It subverts the moderator process, and causes more problems than it solves, only you don't have to deal with them - we do. As such, that privilege is being taken away.

You can call it a nail in the coffin, but if you weren't abusing it, we wouldn't have to do it. Furthermore, the statements like "As long as it's there, I'm going to do it" does not fill me with confidence that the behaviour is going to change.

Folks, I don't like taking away features. I've left HTML turned on, I've left the ability to post pictures turned on, I've left signatures turned on, and I've left the search feature turned on. Those features too have been abused. However, none of them has had the impact as this feature.

Again, just because you initiated the thread, that does not give you the right to delete it. You can delete your own post, but deleting the entire thread behind it was never the intent or purpose of the option.

Look at it this way: I don't approve of the Moderators deleting threads or posts unless 100% absolutely neccessary. What makes you think I want the members deleting threads whenever they feel like it? You don't own the thread. You own your own posts, and thats it. It's the moderators job to determine when something is out of line.

This option has not always been there, and we got along just fine without it before. But, because we haven't taken notice of this problem before, it hasn't really been brought up. Unfortunately, that's created a situation where people feel that this is an accepted use of the "delete post" feature.

This is the text you see when you hit the edit button:
Delete? To delete this post, check this box.
Click to expand...

Nowhere does it say: "To delete this post and everything behind it" as that wasn't how it was designed. If you delete your post in the middle of a thread, it doesn't eliminate every post behind it, does it? So why on earth do you think that deleting the first post should delete the rest in the thread?

If you no longer want your post at the beginning of the thread, edit out your message and replace it with something appropriate. But I have yet to see any convincing argument for why you should be further allowed to exploit this bug in the software.

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com

Insert witty quip here


[This message has been edited by Spark (edited 18 November 1999).]
 
Spark, maybe you don't see this dialog because you're a moderator. This is what it says:
Delete? To delete this post, check this box.
Note: deleting this post will result in the deletion of the entire topic, since this post is the first post in the topic.
Click to expand...

Since ghostsix is gone, I guess I'll stay awhile. In any event, it's going to be a long time before I send any more money to the BF store.

Cougar, your "freedom of speech" isn't in effect here. Whatever rights you have are granted by the forum owner.

------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!


 
Yeesh -- is it possible to get out of this thread??? Other people are posting faster than I can write replies!
smile.gif


I just posted my last post and saw all the others that had been posted while I was writing that ... most of the issues I addressed in that post were resolved while I was writing it. I think all that remains is to explain why, to those who don't get it.

To the net newbies -- I've noticed before that some newbies have the idea that posts subsequent to yours in a thread somehow belong to you, you have some responsibility for and authority over what other people write if they posted it as a reply to a post of yours -- no. You own what you write, you are responsible for what you write, you have authority over what you write. No one else owns or is responsible for or has authority over what you write. You don't own what other people write, you have no responsibility for what other people write, you have no authority over what other people write.

(I know that was spelling it out pretty thoroughly, but the point doesn't seem to have gotten across to everyone with earlier briefer explanations ... oh, well, spare the rod and spoil the dead horse....)

It makes no difference who starts a thread. Posts belong to people; threads do not. You can post a question and choose whatever question you want to ask; you cannot control what other people choose to post in reply. They may ignore your question entirely and go off on a tangent and a discussion may get going that has no interest for you and your question may never get answered. Naturally that will annoy you, but there's nothing you can do about it. You can't force anyone to answer your question and you can't prevent them from talking about something entirely different -- that's what freedom of speech is all about. They can post whatever they want (within the rules if there are any in that forum) and they can post it subsequent to your post and it makes no difference if you started the thread or not; threads are not property. Threads do not belong to anyone.

We really have freedom of speech on the net, we don't just claim to allow it like some governments claim to allow it ... that confuses people from some countries....

We have rules and moderators to enforce them in some forums, but we don't have arbitrary dictators ... well, a few forums do have arbitrary dictators, but they can't force anyone to involve themselves in their forums ... any idiot can start a forum, and run it any way he chooses, and the usual result is he'll have exactly the forum he wants ... all by himself. It's easy to start a forum ... the only hard part is getting anyone to go there.

I hope that makes it clear why we don't make each thread a little forum of its own with whoever started it as dictator -- no one would be willing to participate in a thread a newbie starts, not knowing what rules that little dictator might invent and enforce, not knowing if our posts might be deleted arbitrarily.... We choose our rules by consensus, with much discussion and arguing, and we choose our moderators carefully, too. Sometimes a forum starts first and then decides on rules and chooses a moderator to enforce them, other times the moderator starts the forum and draws up the rules and then issues an invitation to join, but either way it's still the choice of the members -- we don't have to participate in this forum. If we don't like the rules or the way the moderators choose to enforce them we can start a meta discussion about it and if a new consensus emerges either the rules and enforcement will change to fit that new consensus, or else the members will go elsewhere.


If you want to have control of "your" threads, you can go to www.onelist.com and start your own mailing list (no computer skills needed), post your rules and invite people to join your list, and start a thread there, and you will have the power to delete posts before anyone but you sees them (if you choose to set up your list that way). I predict no one will post in your thread, but if you want a thread that belongs to you, you can have one.... It's possible you will get people to join your forum, you might even build it into a big active forum and eventually get as big as this one, but if you exercise your authority as moderator arbitrarily you won't.

I'm sorry Ghostsix left. Many of his posts were inscrutable, and a few were offensive, but I always felt he didn't mean any harm really ... and I often found his posts interesting reading, whether I understood them or not. Oh, well.

He was not the only one making offensive posts on the tactical forum, but I don't think there are any problems there that can't be resolved, and probably fairly easily. Maybe Ghostsix's getting kicked out will serve as a warning to others and they'll shape up without any further action being taken.

These forums are thriving and they look like they'll continue to grow and thrive for the foreseeable future. Meta discussions like this come up in every healthy forum; it's a sign of health, not a sign of trouble.

-Cougar Allen :{)
 
Yet again, posts are crossing...
smile.gif


"Cougar, your "freedom of speech" isn't in effect here. Whatever
rights you have are granted by the forum owner."

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it: whatever rights the forum owner has are granted by the members. Think about that....
smile.gif


Spark, I am overjoyed that you disabled that misfeature; I would have asked you to if I'd known the software made it possible. Double posts are a very minor nuisance; we can live with that -- I don't think they'll be as common as they were earlier anyway; most of the bugs that were causing them have been fixed. If we do see some double posts now and then, so what? A bug that causes a little clutter is better than a hole in security that allows any two-bit wannabee dictator the power to censor other members' posts....

-Cougar Allen :{)
 
Ewok, I probably didn't see it because I didn't click on the first post in the thread, I clicked to edit my post. My mistake, thanks for correcting me.

Regardless though, because of the points made above, it's not right to delete the whole thread if you aren't a moderator or admin, yadda yadda yadda.

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com

Insert witty quip here
 
Since I started this thread, I should say something more given the discussion generated.

I spoke to the "author" of the "disappeared" threads. He self deleted since he didn't feel it was serving any positive purpose. (Shrug) As I posted in the beginning, I believe threads should continue to the natural conclusion. Careful "Moderation" seems needed more than ever on some though because some members seem to have problems moderating themselves...

To be understanding, the author is fairly new to this site, as are many others since the membership is burgeoning. So, this thread and a couple others may catch the newbies and give a heads up what is or isn't acceptable...

sing

AKTI #A00356
 
I did not realize I was committing a violation by deleting threads I had initiated. It seemed like the correct thing to do when the post had served its purpose or taken a downward spiral. I will be more conscientious with future posts.

My natural tendency is to dispose of clutter. I forget eposts aren't slips of paper on my desk.

------------------
"The snake that cannot shed its skin perishes.
So do thinkers who cannot change their opinions;
they cease to think."
-NIETZSCHE
 
...a couple of quick comments (just got off of work at noon due to our first snow and decided to pop in here to see what's been happening):

(1) As a moderator for the last few months, I think I've closed 2 or 3 threads, deleted NONE, but moved a heck of a lot to where they belong.

(2) When I have time, I like being able to delete a post of mine that moved a thread in its new forum so that continuity isn't broken by my administrative actions.

(3) I still remain adament that new folks should be compelled to read the rules and scope out the whole site before being able to post. It was a policy on a BBS I sysoped in the old days and worked great. Here, I've no doubt that it would go a LONG way to obviating posts in wrong forums, misunderstandings about the delete option, misunderstandings about what moderators do, etc. ad nauseum. I'd like to see Spark try it before removing the delete post option.

(4) What has become so hard of late to making a post without having to resort to including adjectives and characterizations about folks who hold opinions different than one's own? It's a fine line to skate bordering on personal attacks... a BIG no-no here on BFC.
And such content invariably adds nothing to the discussion.

...I leave now still shaking my head, trying to figure out why the chemistry here is so different with under 2000 members as opposed to nearly 4000 we have now.


------------------
-=[Bob Allman]=-
..Rapid City, SD..

I did NOT escape from the institution! They gave me a day pass!

BFC member since the very beginning
Member: American Knife & Tool Institute; Varmint Hunters Association;
National Rifle Association; Praire Thunder Inc.; Rapid City Rifle Club;
Spearfish Rifle & Pistol Club; Buck Collectors Club (prime interest: 532s)
Certified Talonite(r) enthusiast!


 
Ahhh, so you notice the difference too Bob? That's what I meant by my nail in the coffin remark. Things have changed, and not for the better. I see the same thing's happening here, that made many members leave KFC.

------------------
LD
"Every Dog Has His Day"
BFC Member Since October 2, 1998



[This message has been edited by Lucky Dog (edited 18 November 1999).]
 
It was the "chemistry" issue that led me to start the "Turber, McClung and Black Helicopters" thread -- my way of trying to get people to step back and lighten up.

I believe this is good advice for everyone, member and moderator alike. After all, it's only knives we're talking about, not something important like model railroads or Maine Coon Cats.

------------------
Bill

Unfortunate but Increasingly Necessary Disclaimer:

While this post likely contains misspelled words, poor grammar, fuzzy logic and incorrect information, it does not represent malice toward anyone or an intention to incite the least bit of trouble.

 
So should we add a disclaimer to our posts that the opinions we express in no way reflect the opinions of the owners of this forum?
Sheeeesh!
What happened here? It used to be fun to ask questions, post silly responses and read other viewpoints. Granted some were a bit off the beaten path but that is what made them so interesting.
I don't think the delete option is really a big deal. If I don't like what I wrote I change/edit it, but delete it....nah.

------------------
The bible is not such a book a man would write if he could, or could write if he would.

*Lewis S. Chafer

2 Tim 3:16
 
"new folks should be compelled to read the rules"

That would certainly be wonderful if it could be done -- but how???

If I were running a university I would make every student read the Newbie FAQs and pass a test on them before I would let them loose on the net, but I don't see any other way to force people to read anything before posting ... that would seem impractical here....

-Cougar Allen :{)
 
I too think this is going to blow over. It just seems like things are bad because all of this is happening at once.

We'll see what happens with the "delete" feature. I don't think that it's a big deal either, but I don't like how it's been twisted. Other than that, nothing major.

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com

Insert witty quip here
 
I hope the banning of Ghostsix doesn't stir up yet another firestorm. As much as I respect the Colonel, he went seriously overboard on the Liz "marketing question" threads. I said as much in the Spyderco version of it. That was his biggest mistake, IMHO and the fact that Spark and Mike gave him a chance afterwards shows a lack of being too "trigger happy" on the "ban user" gun.

Sorry Colonel, but I have to call it like I see it. It's not a good situation; I personally owe him a lot for constructive criticism he gave me when I first put my website up...after the case has gone to trial I can tell the full story but the short form is, if I win the Colonel will be noted as a major positive factor. I'm not being sarcastic here, I mean it just the way it came out.

Sigh.

Jim
 
My congratulations to Management.
The decisions to challenge the "my thread" syndrome and to confront the G6 problem are, IMO , appropriate and timely.



------------------
BrianWE
ICQ #21525343


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top