board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Article 8 - Policy on Thread Deletion VOTE CLOSED

Post Reply   Page 3 of 5  [ 95 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 9:21 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
I'm happy to see some spirited discussion going on here. I'm mostly with Faramond on this; I think we need to set high standards for the deleting anything that allegedly harms either the community or individuals within it. To use the example that Faramond used, there is no question in my mind that Farawen's "The Problem With board77" has been harmful to me personally, but I would argue until I am blue in the face against ever deleting any of it.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Jul , 2005 5:06 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Ok, we've got statutes of limitations sorted out so I think we can move in the direction of a ballot here.

Here's the provisions that we're looking at ...

Article 8: Policy on Thread Deletions

Our policy is to not delete threads for any reason except those stated in this Article.

¶1: Routine Exceptions

• Obsolete Announcements, obsolute FAQ threads, and Jury Room threads used by the various committees in their work may be moved to the forum entitled Threads of Historical Interest.

• Hearing threads that an involved member has asked to be deleted will be moved to Deleted Thread Storage for [ten days/two weeks/one month/?] beyond the expiration of the member's right to appeal under Article 5, ¶8. Then the thread will be deleted permanently. (These threads are not moved or deleted except by member request.)
Note: A5,¶8 is 91 days or the expiry of the penalty, whichever comes first

• Threads moved to Deleted Thread Storage by a Ranger because of their objectionable content will be held for [ten days/two weeks/one month/three months/?] beyond the period in which a Hearing may be convened under Article 5, ¶4. If a Hearing is convened, the threads will be held throughout the Hearing and [ten days/two weeks/one month/?] beyond the expiration of the member's right to appeal under Article 5, ¶8. (These threads can be deleted without member permission because they contain objectional content and can no longer be used as evidence.)
Note: A5,¶4 is 10 days -- A5, ¶8 is 91 days or expiry of the penalty, whichever comes first

• Threads moved to Deleted Thread Storage because they resulted in an Immediate Ban imposed on the member will be held for [ten days/two weeks/one month/three months/?] beyond the expiration of the member's right to request a reversal of the ban with evidentiary arguments under Article 5, ¶5.
Note: A5,¶5 is 91 days

The expiry date of a thread will be noted in the thread when it is moved into Deleted Thread Storage.

¶2: Other Exceptions

Here you guys have to fill in the contingencies you want, however broad or narrow. And I believe Faramond would like to specify that use of this paragraph requires a Binding vote.


Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Tue 12 Jul , 2005 7:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Jul , 2005 6:52 am
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Looking forward to Faramond's suggestions :)

One question:
Relevant to this: can we please build in somewhere (Ranger handbook) the 'need' to make an entry into the thread (title? First/last post) when such a thread is locked/moved and it's expiry?
Logging this stuff I think is important and relevant - easier for a team of Rangers to work hand-in-hand.

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Jul , 2005 7:35 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Alandriel,

I'll make a note of that for the Handbook. We can also add it into the Charter itself with one sentence: The expiry date of a thread will be noted in the thread when it is moved into Deleted Thread Storage. (added)

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Jul , 2005 3:32 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Thanks Jny :)
_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Jul , 2005 5:14 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Right now, the only kind of conversational thread I can think of that should be eligible for deletion is one started for the clear purpose of maliciously harming another poster.

In all other cases I believe edits or post deletions should be sufficient to take care of malicious strands in a thread.

I'm still thinking about this, but that's my idea right now. I really think we need to set the threshold for deletion of anything really high.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Jul , 2005 7:31 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
one started for the clear purpose of maliciously harming another poster.

or, perhaps, ends up being used to that purpose by others who post in it.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Jul , 2005 7:37 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
or, perhaps, ends up being used to that purpose by others who post in it.

But in that case does the whole thread have to go?

Or just the strands of the thread where the genuine abuse started happening?


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Jul , 2005 7:55 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
There is also the problem that malicious intent, like beauty, is often in the eyes of the beholder.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Jul , 2005 7:59 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Yes, but any deletion standard we come up with is going to be in the eye of the beholder. That's been my trouble all along with the thread deletion stuff. And I still don't like the idea of deleting any conversationtal thread.

But there are eye of beholders all over the charter. It can't be helped. It is what it is. At some point we have to trust the Rangers to correctly dispatch these beholders. We can't eradicate all of the beholders by ourselves.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Jul , 2005 8:14 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
True enough. :)


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 12 Jul , 2005 8:27 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
We can split the thread as an alternative if it becomes malicious in the middle. No problem specifying that. In fact, the first step might be moving it to the Bike Racks, because if the malice were against another member that's what would happen.

If the malice is against a non-member, that's where I think we should give the Rangers some discretion because a non-member can't enter to resolve the dispute themselves.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 3:41 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
I've been mulling all this over and I have to ask: What is so intrinsically valuable about all these conversational threads that makes them indispensable?

Why are we so hung up about this? I mean - do you all save and archive your YM discussions too? Record your phone calls? Take notes when a group of friends meets together for social conversation? What's the big deal with it?

This is a genuine question: what is the big deal with keeping it all? Is it post count mania? (doubt it) Is it because all our words are gems of wisdom? (I know mine aren't and - pardon my bluntness - we ALL have our moments) What is it?

I've been chewing on this for days now - since I opened my eyes to all the fall-out from Wilko's thread to which I had previously been blinded in my zeal to open and be transparent. If that thread went (note I'm not calling for its deletion, just using it as a case in point) would the world shatter?

I ask now because we are really splitting our guts to get the exactly correct wording on the circumstances in which we will allow a deletion of a thread - and standing back from it I just cannot see that the principle behind all this is so very fundamental; this is an ephemeral media; indeed, this is an ephemeral community (though we don't like to see it that way).

I can't really answer the question being posed and I'm sorry I'm not being helpful here - it's not because I want to be obstructionist about it but because I really don't understand.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 4:20 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Faramond - I'm sorry but I did not read your earlier post carefully enough and was thinking about it in an odd way .... yes, of course, we already have provisions for individual malicious posts within a thread. There is not need to delete a thread that goes south in the middle. It would be up to the Rangers to decide whether to split part of it off to the Bike Racks.

Threads started with apparent malicious intent is fine with me as a criterion.

Imp - it would be hard for me to compose a complete response to your question because it's kind of late at night here ... I'll have to think about it a bit.

I think at the core it is a gut reaction ... I feel that the ability to rewrite history at one's convenience is a slippery slope, and especially dangerous when a group makes us of it. I don't want a Deleted Thread Storage forum full of mean things that others have said. I don't think it encourage honesty and authenticity if people can make their own past words disappear ... I have instinctual reactions against all these things.

I don't know yet how ephemeral this medium really is. I feel that I am a part of the evolution that will ultimately define this medium and I don't want convenient erasures to be the norm of the culture that ultimately emerges.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 11:36 am
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Jny wrote:
If the malice is against a non-member, that's where I think we should give the Rangers some discretion because a non-member can't enter to resolve the dispute themselves.
A non-member CAN enter to try and resolve the dispute themselves. As you said in your fantastic post over at Bikeracks, the board has a policy of not getting involved in member-disputes. And hence, no discretion to Rangers in any of this. We have bikeracks, we have the jury room and they will work :)



_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 11:45 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
People, I'm about to do a 180-degree turn on this issue ... mainly, I'm afraid, because I'm running out of patience that we are stuck so long on two tiny paragraphs which would finish the Charter.

I was going to take Faramond's criterion of "threads started maliciously" but threads started by trolls are already covered elsewhere and the Rangers would get rid of them as soon as they appeared. they would not evolve into discussions. If a dispute breaks out in the middle of a thread, Rangers can break it off to the BikeRacks. They already have the right to edit anything we have defined as objectionable.

The more I think about it, the more I think that any reasons for deleting a thread would be truly unforeseen, so we are not going to be able to define them narrowly here.

We want to give future generations of posters latitude to protect the board, but we want to keep the membership in charge of policy decisions. Faramond had said earlier that the need for a binding vote to delete a thread belongs in this Article, not the other, and I agree with him.

So I am thinking about the following formulation for paragraph 2 of this Article:

¶2: If it seems necessary to delete a thread in order to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board, a Binding Vote of the membership must be held to do this.

That gaurantees one thing, at least - that the issue will be discussed and the decision will not be made frivolously.

Would that solve our dilemma?

jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 12:06 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
I think so :)
_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 8:23 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Hobby, could I ask you to paste this Draft Ballot into the first post? Thank you!
_________________________________
DRAFT BALLOT #48

Approving the text of Article 8: Policy on Thread Deletions

Question 1: approve opening statement.

“Our policy is to not delete threads for any reason except those stated in this Article.”

PLEASE SELECT
A. I approve this opening statement
B. I do not approve this opening statement

Approving the text of ¶1: Routine Exceptions, subject to your choices for the text shown in blue (where applicable)

Question 2: approve this routine exception

• Obsolete Announcements, obsolete FAQ threads, and Jury Room threads used by the various committees in their work may be moved to the forum entitled Threads of Historical Interest.

PLEASE SELECT
A. I approve this routine exception
B. I do not approve this routine exception

Question 3: approve this routine exception, subject to Question 4

• Hearing threads that an involved member has asked to be deleted will be moved to Deleted Thread Storage for [ten days/two weeks/one month/?] beyond the expiration of the member's right to appeal under Article 5, ¶8. Then the thread will be deleted permanently. (These threads are not moved or deleted except by member request.)
Note: A5,¶8 is 91 days or the expiry of the penalty, whichever comes first

PLEASE SELECT
A. I approve this routine exception, subject to Question 4
B. I do not approve this routine exception

Question 4: length of time Hearing threads marked for deletion will be held beyond the expiration of right to appeal

A. ten days
B. two weeks
C. one month

PLEASE RANK YOUR CHOICES, with #1 being most preferred
1.
2.
3.

Question 5: approve this routine exception, subject to Question 6

• Threads moved to Deleted Thread Storage by a Ranger because of their objectionable content will be held for [two weeks/one month/three months/?] beyond the period in which a Hearing may be convened under Article 5, ¶4. If a Hearing is convened, the threads will be held throughout the Hearing and [result of Question 4 beyond the expiration of the member's right to appeal under Article 5, ¶8. (These threads can be deleted without member permission because they contain objectionable content and can no longer be used as evidence.)
Note: A5,¶4 is 10 days

PLEASE SELECT
A. I approve this routine exception, subject to Question 6
B. I do not approve this routine exception

Question 6: length of time Objectionable Content threads will be held beyond the Ranger’s right to convene a Hearing

A. ten days
B. two weeks
C. one month
D. three months

PLEASE RANK YOUR CHOICES, with #1 being most preferred
1.
2.
3.
4.

Question 7: approve this routine exception, subject to Question 8

• Threads moved to Deleted Thread Storage because they resulted in an Immediate Ban imposed on the member will be held for [ten days/two weeks/one month/three months/?] beyond the expiration of the member's right to request a reversal of the ban with evidentiary arguments under Article 5, ¶5.
Note: A5,¶5 is 91 days

PLEASE SELECT
A. I approve this routine exception, subject to Question 8
B. I do not approve this routine exception

Question 8: length of time spam/porn/bannable threads will be held beyond the member’s right to request a reversal using the thread as evidence

A. ten days
B. two weeks
C. one month
D. three months

PLEASE RANK YOUR CHOICES, with #1 being most preferred
1.
2.
3.
4.

Question 9: approve the final text of this paragraph

The expiry date of a thread will be noted in the thread when it is moved into Deleted Thread Storage.

PLEASE SELECT
A. I approve this text
B. I do not approve this text

Question 10: Approving the text of ¶2: Other Exceptions

¶2: If it seems necessary to delete a thread in order to preserve the peace, security or continuance of the board, a Binding Vote of the membership must be held to do this.

PLEASE SELECT
A. I approve this text
B. I do not approve this text

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 8:45 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
I would like to state for the record that I hope we never delete non-troll conversational threads here.

But ... it's not the place of us writing the charter to attempt to write every hope we have for the future into the charter as binding law. I am still very tempted to say that we just ban the deletion of threads, but I'm willing to go with the clause Jn has written and then trust in the future posters of this board to do the right thing (as I see it :)).


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 13 Jul , 2005 8:56 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
I'm so sorry, I had no time at all for this! :oops:

Jny, you really are practically Wonder Woman! :hug:

Posting the ballot in the first post now. :)

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 3 of 5  [ 95 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Jump to: