Option to delete a forum post

@kewpie said
This would definitely be abused.

I agree. I'm not sure automatic deletions upon n thumbs down is a good idea. It looks to me like mob rule. One could imagine Duchess's posts, for example, being routinely deleted by this means. This would lead to de facto censorship of unpopular views. Not a good place to be.


I prefer having an alert flag and review by moderators.

@russ said


This will be the case.

Delete will be available at anytime, but it will show who posted and the post will remain in place - with the content deleted.

Isn't it simpler, and entirely adequate, to lengthen the "edit" time-out? Anyone who wishes to delete his post can simply 'edit' it blank.

@moonbus said
I agree. I'm not sure automatic deletions upon n thumbs down is a good idea. It looks to me like mob rule. One could imagine Duchess's posts, for example, being routinely deleted by this means. This would lead to de facto censorship of unpopular views. Not a good place to be.


I prefer having an alert flag and review by moderators.

I was thinking more along the lines of Cameron's Big Society where the 'aim was to create a climate that empowered local people and communities, building a "big society" that would take power away from politicians and give it to people."

So, not so much 'mob rule' but collective moderation when a particular post or poster crossed the line of acceptable civility.

@russ said
@Shallow-Blue

This will be the case.

Delete will be available at anytime, but it will show who posted and the post will remain in place - with the content deleted.

What will prevent it from being abused by those seeking to cover-up what they posted earlier? Allowing the ability to remove all evidence at anytime will be abused. It's difficult enough to get some people to own what they've posted as it is.

@ThinkOfOne

Everyone should have the right to remove something they posted on the internet. On here, or anywhere else.

A deletion will look like a retraction. (The fact that player A posted something that was deleted will still be apparent, and player B's responses will remain.)

I will be looking to get this live tomorrow.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I was thinking more along the lines of Cameron's Big Society where the 'aim was to create a climate that empowered local people and communities, building a "big society" that would take power away from politicians and give it to people."

So, not so much 'mob rule' but collective moderation when a particular post or poster crossed the line of acceptable civility.

The problem with Cameron's "Big Society" [caps] is that Theresa May's "bickering society" [lower case] replaced it. Gresham's law: "Bad money drives out good."

@russ said
@ThinkOfOne

Everyone should have the right to remove something they posted on the internet. On here, or anywhere else.

A deletion will look like a retraction. (The fact that player A posted something that was deleted will still be apparent, and player B's responses will remain.)

I will be looking to get this live tomorrow.

Responses to a blank?? What's the point of that?


PS thanks for re-instating the mouse-over identifying country flags.

@russ said
@ThinkOfOne

Everyone should have the right to remove something they posted on the internet. On here, or anywhere else.

A deletion will look like a retraction. (The fact that player A posted something that was deleted will still be apparent, and player B's responses will remain.)

I will be looking to get this live tomorrow.

A deletion will look like a retraction. (The fact that player A posted something that was deleted will still be apparent, and player B's responses will remain.)

A retraction like when mods remove a post and subsequent responses are often made difficult if not impossible to follow because all the text that was originally posted is removed from the responses as well? That sort of retraction? Why not label it as a retraction and replace the text with strikethrough text instead?

Are you also going to remove the one hour limits for edits as well? According to your line of thought, then that should be done as well.

I

@thinkofone said
Are you also going to remove the one hour limits for edits as well? According to your line of thought, then that should be done as well.

Not the same.

An edit could change the context of a post ( "I support A" to "I DO NOT support A" ) long after a thread has developed. Some later posts may simply state they agree with the original poster - posted before the content was unedited. Lots of opportunity for mischief.

@Russ
Hmmmmm...Does this mean I will need to Polish up my Halo! 😉

-VR

@very-rusty said
@Russ
Hmmmmm...Does this mean I will need to Polish up my Halo! 😉

-VR

Wise man say, 'you can't polish what you don't have.'

@russ said
Not the same.

An edit could change the context of a post ( "I support A" to "I DO NOT support A" ) long after a thread has developed. Some later posts may simply state they agree with the original poster - posted before the content was unedited. Lots of opportunity for mischief.

So on one hand:
"Everyone should have the right to remove something they posted on the internet. On here, or anywhere else."

But on the other hand they should not have the right to edit something they posted on the internet.

Exposes the first hand for the empty platitude it is.

There will be plenty of "opportunity for mischief" with both.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Wise man say, 'you can't polish what you don't have.'

Wiser man says: Speak when you are spoken too! 😛

You are NOT RUSS!!!

-VR

@thinkofone said
So on one hand:
"Everyone should have the right to remove something they posted on the internet. On here, or anywhere else."

But on the other hand they should not have the right to edit something they posted on the internet.

Exposes the first hand for the empty platitude it is.

There will be plenty of "opportunity for mischief" with both.

I believe you have a good point there!

-VR

@russ said
Not the same.

An edit could change the context of a post ( "I support A" to "I DO NOT support A" ) long after a thread has developed. Some later posts may simply state they agree with the original poster - posted before the content was unedited. Lots of opportunity for mischief.

So is this "agenda to reduce mischief" also behind taking away the opportunity to edit the quote box on posts? Sometimes I don't need to quote an entire post, just the bit I wish to respond to.