board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Article 8 - Policy on Thread Deletion VOTE CLOSED

Post Reply   Page 2 of 5  [ 95 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 09 Jul , 2005 10:33 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
I thought it had just got forgotten with all the really difficult votes coming up - I'll draft a ballot tomorrow! :)

_________________

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
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 09 Jul , 2005 10:43 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
No, we haven't run out of discussion. There's a bit more to be said ...

I'm sorry, folks, but I'm getting a bit overwhelmed here.

I started to write the Ratification Posts, which means explaining for the sake of new members how we do it, summarizing the stuff that's being ratified, and then providing links to the actual document thread in this forum.

So I started to load everything we just voted on into the Actual Document thread and I discovered something awful. There is a post length limitation on this board.

I kept getting these little beep-beeps, and it kept throwing me down to the bottom of the reply box .... and suddenly I realized that the program was erasing from the bottom as I added to the middle. Fortunately I have the Charter on my hardrive, and there's Alandriel's geocities site too but I'd hate to edit back and forth from there to here.

I can't manipulate that thread because Griff and Imp posted in it and I can't remove or reposition their posts. So I've had to pull the whole charter out of the Actual Documents thread, restore what was erased, and now I'll have to reload it into a new thread - one article per post so I don't run out of space, and then go back and finish the Ratification threads with all new links.

I just don't have time today to spend the whole day on this, and I'm leaving to go out for the evening in about 20 minutes.

Please be patient as it's going to be well into tomorrow, I fear, before I can get any Ratification threads up and then get back here to discuss the remaining articles.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Sat 09 Jul , 2005 11:28 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Jn, I hope you don't feel pressured on this. You're putting out a huge effort, and I know it's greatly appreciated. But I doubt any of us really realize how much of your limited free time you've given up to this. I hope you enjoy your evening out!

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Sun 10 Jul , 2005 11:50 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Ok, here’s how I would like to handle this Article.

We have three circumstances where we know that threads are going to be routinely deleted.

1. When a member requests that a Hearing thread or a Bike Racks thread be deleted
2. When a thread or post is deleted because it violates the by-laws and a Hearing might be held
3. When a thread or post is deleted and results in an immediate ban.

All three of these kinds of threads are needed as evidence in hearings. So our policy on when they can be deleted depends on our policy for Statutes of limitations, for which I have just posted a Draft Ballot in the appropriate thread.

So I would like the opening clause of this Article to state that our general policy is not to delete threads for any reason except those stated in this Article.

¶1 will then cover the “Routine Deletions” described above, explain that the threads are held in Deleted Thread Storage until the time arrives for permanent deletion, and it will give the times for permanent deletion that have been suggested in this thread - we’ll have some choices to vote on here, but roughly:

• up to three months from the end of the time in which a hearing might be convened;
• 10 days to 2 weeks from the end of the time in which a jury decision might be appealed IF the member has requested deletion;
• three months after the imposition of an Immediate ban.

And, in light of recent events, I think we should add to this Article a ¶2 which states that a thread can be deleted if any of its contents may cause harm to the board or to its members or to any other person and the thread cannot be edited in such a way as to avoid this. Rangers would have the right to move such a thread into Deleted Thread Storage until a binding vote of the membership could be held to decide its permanent fate.

Are people agreeable to this approach?

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 12:15 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Yes.


Top
Profile Quote
Impenitent
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 12:26 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
Yes.

<echo. echo. echo....>


Top
Profile Quote
MaidenOfTheShieldarm
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 1:34 am
Another bright red day
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Far from the coast of Utopia
 
Yes.

Is that an Airplane! reference I see, Imp?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
IdylleSeethes
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 3:46 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 5:10 pm
Location: Bretesche
 
I would like to say yes, but the continuing discussion about a certain thread causes me to wonder about the danger of being overly sensitive. I've had lies spread about me in the Washington Post as well as several other major newspapers. It's a bother when it happens, but so what. If people can't judge you for who you are, rather what someone else says you are, I don't think it matters. If we are going to allow this to happen, we need some guidelines about what qualifies.

_________________

Idylle in exile: the view over the laptop on a bad day
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 3:55 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Idyll, I agree. I would like some help fleshing out what those guidelines should be. I am sorry to say that the discussion in the other thread has turned in an unproductive direction.

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: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 5:06 am
Try to stay perky
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2677
Joined: Wed 29 Dec , 2004 10:54 am
 
MaidenOfTheShieldarm wrote:
Yes.

Is that an Airplane! reference I see, Imp?
Maybe. If it pleases thee, dear Mossy.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 8:01 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Friends, allow me to clarify something about this article.

We have never applied a Charter Article retroactively. We cannot compose this Article, vote on it, ratify it, and then use it to determine the disposition of the thread being discussed in the Bike Racks forum right now because that discussion preceeded the creation of this Article.

I am not suggesting a ¶2 in this Article because I think it will help 'get me what I want' somewhere else. Rather, I believe that there will always be unforeseen circumstances which make a ¶2 of this sort necessary, and what I was hoping was that the discussion in the Bike Racks forum would give us clues as to what rationales the members find most important and compelling, and that we could use those to guide the contingencies we build into this Article.

That discussion has gone into the weeds, as Idylle says, and I don't know if it will come back or not. But I for one would like to get the hell out of this forum permanently, so if you are unable to focus on the issue over there at least please try to focus on the issue here so that we can finish these last few articles and wash our hands of this.

Please look at the draft ballot in the Statute of Limitations thread - once we have voted on that we can fill in the blanks for ¶1 of this article.

And if you have an opinion about how compelling an unforeseen issue should be in order to consider the deletion of a thread - general enough to be usable but not so general as to be usable for anything - please get your thoughts together and post them here.

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: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 10:55 am
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Yikes.. I missed reading the last page of this thread :Q Will be back to edit in further.....

Sorry :(

~~~

You know, ever since we created the Deleted threads storage I've hated that place with a vengeance. I really, REALLY would like to see it gone altogether. To my mind, no threads should be deleted at all but rather locked and allowed to sink as other threads replace it.

Does it make the forums more cluttered? I don't think so. Perhaps that might be the case in Business – but then I'm all for moving threads from there (e.g. after they've been locked for e.g. 2 months) over to 'Threads of Historical Interest'. Archiving them so to speak (another 'record-keeping' job for the Mayor? :shock: ;) )

Bandwidth? While here we don't have to worry about that and I think it's way too early to worry about that in any case ;) Threads that are a 'mistake' and are locked upon threadstarter request don't accumulate many posts and hence won't take up much space at all. Besides, if it really becomes an issue later on (which I doubt it will) then it can always be re-discussed again.

I subscribe 100% to Jny's suggested wording:
Quote:
As a matter of policy substantive conversation threads can be locked but not deleted; and a Binding Vote of the membership would be required to delete exceptional threads or groups of threads.
except I would apply it to ALL threads.

What to do with the threads that are currently in Deleted storage? Get rid of them. They are mostly very old Ranger/Admin threads of how to do this or that and have now been replaced by better organized FAQ threads.

Get rid of the deleted threads storage forum entirely. We are transparent :)

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 11:12 am
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Right.. sorry for that :oops:

Now I see :doh1: that we can't get rid of the deleted threads forum that easily. However, I would advocate to only and exclusevely use it for the temporary storage of threads that might still be needed as 'evidence' until they 'expire'.
Any other thread, lock but keep; possibly 'archive' as I suggested above.

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 1:27 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I came online to tie up a few loose ends and realize I do have something to say here. We need to be sure before deleting a thread that the harm to individuals caused by something in the thread is real harm to them—to their privacy or safety, not just to their feelings. But given that people do tend to be sympathetic to other people's feelings, I'm having trouble coming up with a way to ensure that deletions for "emotional" reasons don't happen, other than a general vote of the membership.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 8:21 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I forgot to mention old Announcement threads and obsolete FAQs.

I would add to routine deletions:

1. Obsolete announcements with no replies.
2. Obsolete FAQ threads, with the permission of the thread starter if it was an individual who posted the FAQ and deleting it will change their post count

You know, we can make our lives easy by forgetting about a ¶2 that allows future members to make decisions on their own. We can also remove from the Article on Binding Votes that #4 provision at the very end which requires a Binding vote to override this article.

If we do that, we are saying that no one in the future may make a decision different from the one we are making here.

Fine. We can do that. But guess what. This Charter can be amended. And if we do not place future decision-making power in the hands of the members on this issue, and future members want desperately to get rid of some threads for whatever reason, they will simply do it by means of a Charter Amendment instead of using a provision that we have given them here.

We cannot create a system today that will control people's action for all future time. Make it as hard or as easy as you wish, they will find a way to get what they want.

It is my strong preference to build into the Charter practical methods for changing things. It will not be a respected, living document otherwise. This is our chance to influence the future by conveying the rationales that were important to us today. If we fold our arms and say simply "Never," we will eventually be ignored.

If people have a really weak feeling about making Thread Deletion too easy in the future, we certainly are not required to build that possibility into this Article. Just remember that our actions here are temporary and contingent. We can guide the future of the board but we can't control 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: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 8:35 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Jn--

I haven't made a decision on paragraph 2, but I don't agree with some of your reasoning here.

I agree that we can't dictate all future action. But we can say what we believe in right now. Now maybe what we believe in on this topic isn't exactly what I believe in, but I can live with that, of course. I question the wisdom of giving in now and giving future members the option to delete threads for broad reasons of harm to the board or harm to members. I would prefer that these reasons be more narrowly defined at least. Harm to the board, for example, is very abstract and could be used to justify some very questionable things.

I wonder, will there come a day when Farawen's thread "the Problem with B77" will be seen as harmful to the board and preventing us from moving forward as a board?

If future members desperately want to delete certain threads and start a censorship or revisionist campaign, I suggest that yes we make them pass an amendment.

Yet I haven't actually made up my mind here. If a thread is truly harmful to a member then I do agree reluctantly that deletion should be an option. But the last option, I should hope.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 8:37 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
I'm sorry Jny.
Perhaps I'm just unusually dense today but I'm not getting it.
Why is it absolutely necessary to delete any old annoucements or FAQ's or whatever? Why can't they just be locked and allowed to float for another couple of weeks, then perhaps once a month or so, if necessary they could be moved to 'Threads of historical interest'?

Sure, that forum is more for real historical interest than just as storage yet I don't think it would make a problem, seeing how well indexed everything is there.

A quick note at the end of the now locked thread pointing to the new one - and the same for the new one, crosslinking it to the old one should suffice.

We're not really worried about bandwidth, not in these cases. Not now and I seriously don't think so in the future either.

Forum's getting too cluttered? I don't think so either. A thread is clearly visible as locked and if there's a short statement in the last post before locking then it's all clear as crystal.

Do these old threads seriously bother people?

I'm a terrible 'hog' and hate to throw anything away :Q
_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 8:47 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Faramond: I question the wisdom of giving in now and giving future members the option to delete threads for broad reasons of harm to the board or harm to members. I would prefer that these reasons be more narrowly defined at least.

That is exactly what I am asking committee members here to do, Faramond - state the way they would like to narrow the definition.

I have no objection to making it difficult - to stating narrow circumstances that would constitute 'harm to the board' under this Article.

I just don't think we should say nothing, i.e. you can never delete a thread, ever. Because then the future will just say to us, FU, and what they come up with in an Amendment could be all over the map compared to what we would have done. We lose our opportunity to influence future policy when we say nothing.

Alandriel - I'm a neat freak, as you probably figured out by now! But if others feels strongly that announcements and FAQ should be left to float away on the tide, I don't mind. They can go into the Historical Interest Forum, and we can write the Article that way if you prefer.

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: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 8:51 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
I agree completely with that, Jn. That makes a lot of sense.

I'll get back later with my own modest proposal, though I will say now that I think I will want to get rid of "harm to the board" entirely. This could end up being too much like enforcing a "vision of the board" in the future.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Jul , 2005 9:08 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
I'm a neat freak too - but then I'm also a hog (goes some way to explain the chaos in my place :halo:)

Yes - I'd definitely preferr just letting them float and perhaps later on moving them.

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]


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