Miscellaneous Rumbles

Suggestion for future versions of the GDP

1

Only a suggestion, but can we do away with the ability to delete your posts beyond a certain time limit after the post is created? Maybe then we can be spared the endless zombie thread resurrections that occur when someone decides to leave and wants to delete all their posts on the way out.

2

I´m sorry for that, but if there were another option to do it it´ll be fine. But I think, I have the right, to delete my account with all of my knowledge and intellectual property. But I will do it then more one by one a day, cause I don´t want to disturb anybody: Sorry for that!

3

I know this place isn't a piece of cake to run, so no offense to Baxter or sense of entitlement, but I think that's a good idea if feasible. The way it works at one forum I hang out at seems ideal to me. Posts can be deleted or edited at will with no notation until there's a followup post. After that, they can still be edited, but not deleted, but it date and time of edits are noted at the bottom of the post. The idea being that there's some explanation of who's changing things when a thread starts to look disjointed. Then after a while (maybe a few hours or a day) posts are permanently locked. The zombie thing doesn't bother me much when it happens on occasion. But, IMO, editing and deleting should be for typos, oversights, or regrets that materialize swiftly. Not going back to change your history on a forum.

4

Sorry, I didn´t noticed that, while doing !!

5

It used to be more like that. I agree, it's better that way.

Please, please don't ever go Around deleting all your posts. It makes a huge mess. Voodooholly -- or anyone else who wants to leave -- if you want to leave, you can always just leave. There's no reason to make a spectacle of it. And you can always come back, too, when you're ready. We'll welcome you back, too.

If you really want to make a production of leaving, then ping me and I'll take care of it. But running around deleting posts just makes messes.

Also... I thought this was all sorted out now?

6

But I think, I have the right, to delete my account with all of my knowledge and intellectual property.

That comment spurred me to take a look at the terms and conditions of membership. I'm not seeing it anywhere. Maybe I'm just not finding it, but if there are none, It might not be a bad idea to post terms and fire off notice. A few forums visit make it crystal clear that you do not have any right to take your content with you when you leave. Once you voluntarily post, the content belongs to the board.

7

It used to be more like that. I agree, it's better that way.

Please, please don't ever go Around deleting all your posts. It makes a huge mess. Voodooholly -- or anyone else who wants to leave -- if you want to leave, you can always just leave. There's no reason to make a spectacle of it. And you can always come back, too, when you're ready. We'll welcome you back, too.

If you really want to make a production of leaving, then ping me and I'll take care of it. But running around deleting posts just makes messes.

Also... I thought this was all sorted out now?

– Baxter

Sorry Tim , I really don't wanted make trouble.I swear , now that I know, what effect it has, I'll stop with it. I really appreciate, what you are deliver here to us. I've posted, that the bad thread should be deleted, the next one said no make a clearance.I've posted how it was, then the next one said delete it.I'm totally confused right now and feeling like standing in a minefield.No matter, wich way I move, I'll hit a bomp.Sorry for that. I better don't move anymore.

8

Afire and Bax, I get what you guys are saying and see the merit of it, particularly if someone is seeking to re-write history. On the other hand, however, there is some value in being able to make edits to a thread even days after it was originally posted. As we know, these things live on for a half-life in the ether and sometimes it makes greater readability to edit the thread with information subsequently learned. There is a certain ethical obligation, however, to note that it is a substantive edit rather than merely a misspelled word or poor choice of grammar. The way that I typically do that is to clearly state: "Edit: yada-yada-yada". In that way, the thread reads clearly and logically, yet it is also very clear that the subsequent edit has occurred.

I have seen that Facebook does it cleverly where it actually shows you what has been deleted or altered from a post. You can see all of the changes made to someone's post, including date and time of any modifications, as well as the original text.

I think that it is very poor form to simply delete a post in a fit of pique. There can be times when it is, however, wise to allow a post to be entirely deleted. Ade spotted one just today and urged it be deleted. That can often be done when it avoids shame, embarrassment, or conceivably libel. Better to allow someone to delete an ill-advised post than leave it for the world to suffer with.

Again, I think that a strong sense of ethics would dictate that one lives with their posts in most instances, whether for good or bad, and not get into a wholesale deleting mode. That misrepresents what someone is about and what they had historically said in the past, which I find to be dishonest.

9

seems the issue is more that when deleting posts, this forum immediately bumps it to new topics in thread

other forums don't have that

if someone wants to erase their posts, that should be up to them...at any time!!

we've had people here before that for legal reasons ie divorce etc..wanted to remove posts...nothing wrong with that!

lastly, i guess you can always wait till the the forum goes down again and erases everything anyways

this is a great forum/community..i'd hope we can be more understanding of individual needs

cheers

10

Afire and Bax, I get what you guys are saying and see the merit of it, particularly if someone is seeking to re-write history. On the other hand, however, there is some value in being able to make edits to a thread even days after it was originally posted.

No, I get that. They system I mentioned allowed edits for quite a while after the initial post. It just noted that there had been edits once there's been a reply and prevented deletions after replies. You can still go back and erase what you wrote for some time, but it prevents those weird threads where somebody's replying to nothing. As for how long, I don't know. I think you can usually figure out that you crossed a line within hours or a day. But maybe a few days would be better. And if you really are a slow learner, then you can always ask a mod to remove something really regrettable.

The forum I'm talking about implemented this structure after just this type of situation.

11

lastly, i guess you can always wait till the the forum goes down again and erases everything anyways -- neatone

Now, THAT was downright funny, neatone!

12

hah, bob... wasnt trying to be trite or snarky

been here awhile...love this place..seen some stuff

but why ok to lose everything, but member can't erase his own posts???

lets keep it civil..if somebody wants stuff gone...let him/her...don't blame them that the forum internet architecture bumps it to the new topic bin

cheers

13

In no other aspect of life do we get to erase our communications at will. The same rules of decorum and circumspection that we all have to live by elsewhere can apply here too. I don't see why anybody should expect that forums paid for and run by other people, operated as shared collections of knowledge, wisdom, opinion and humor, should allow people to vandalize or muck up the continuity because they're upset. If there's a real problem (e.g., a divorce, stalker, whatever), contact an admin. Otherwise, be responsible in what you post. And if you feel that you have some sort of "right" to your knowledge or "intellectual property" then don't share it on a public forum in the first place. That shouldn't even have to be said. The whole concept doesn't sit right with me at all.

14

Yep, I get it. There is a bit of an etch-a-sketch nature to it. We do have the ability to erase magnetic tape and digital storage media. And, just because we can't reel back in words that we utter, that shouldn't be the reason to not allow a post to be deleted here. There are valid competing social policies for and against it and the ultimate decision will be made on the basis of which one Bax finds most persuasive.

Preventing deletion of a post runs counter to Bax's laissez-faire approach to the site. Rather than forbidding conduct, Bax allows the membership to regulate behavior here. So, to the extent to which people delete posts for no legitimate reason, there should be comments against that conduct.

Again, for me, it is a matter of ethics. If you won't stand by your remarks, then you should consider not posting them in the first place.

15

Under normal situations, all things being equal, I have sympathy with comments by both Afire and Ric12.

As a self-policing community, I think the GDP has a reasonably good track record of maintaining itself in this (and other) areas of social behavior. I think the fact that we have discussions like this one when situations warrant - wherein we wonder whether the current system is the best possible or if it might be tweaked - are evidence of the health of the process.

To that extent, I'm for Bax's laissez-faire approach. I agree we should all be responsible for what we post, and ultimately stand by it. The older it gets, the less it has the whiff of social media current events and the more it feels like part of the historical record. I dislike it when the historical record is retroactively edited. (I REALLY dislike it when the historical record ups and disappears.)

Whether we require rules to codify some version of these values is open to the discussion we're now having (though Bax will make the decision to do something or nothing). Given the dual nature of the GDP as social media and a permanent record, I think we have to be open to people editing what is originally written on the spur of the moment (and possibly of emotion or raw reactivity). The idea that posts be edit-able for a [period of time], and then become less so is not horrifying to me. (Though I often tweak posts, usually for style or accuracy but occasionally for content or because my head cleared later, as long as a week or more after the fact. So the [period of time] would matter to me personally.)

And it really pees in my cornflakes when the opening post of a thread disappears and orphans everything that follows. Or when a particularly significant (possibly disputatious, outrageous but sometimes - occasionally - unusually insightful or glorious) post disappears down-thread, especially if it's been crucial to the context of a discussion. I've been party to such exchanges, and the disappearance of one's sparring (or discussion) partner is unpleasant.

Maybe that shouldn't be allowed to happen.

On the other hand, some threads are started either under such ill intent, or under such obvious emotional, psychological, or chemical duress, that it's obvious early on than nothing good can come of them. When they're started by a well-known member of the community, whose usual good nature and best intentions are generally accepted (regardless his idiosyncrasies or annoying habits) and show evidence of clearly unusual or disturbing behavior, we might guess the content will eventually - maybe soon - be thought better of. In such cases it seems to me it's better for the original poster (and ultimately for the community) if he be allowed to retract, even make the episode go away.

Again, we're operating in some improvised zone between pure ephemeral social media and something a little more permanent. Some of us think, write, and edit with an awareness of the larger context, a bit like we're writing for publication - or at least that we're writing for a wider audience. Others treat this like a chatroom, whose content disappears over the scrolling horizon of the page - or give no thought at all to "context" or "history." Most of us do a little of each.

But when someone is clearly posting facebookily, twitterly, instagramly, as in the horrifying comment threads to national news stories, in the heat of the moment, on the spur of despair or inspiration or anger or rage - then we might expect they'll cool off, simmer down, think better of their outburst. I have no trouble with the notion of giving them (of giving us) hours or days to clean up after ourselves. (Weeks is probably longer than necessary.) Particularly so if the content in question is unrelated to the substance of music, guitars, and Gretsch - when it's personal, clearly emotional, and something that maybe shouldn't have been made public in the first place.

We all occasionally make messes, and outside the witness stand or when under surveillance, we're allowed and even expected to clean them up. If in the process of making messes we've slung allegations or implications we didn't mean, hurt others heedlessly, spilled beans we would have normally held close, or embarrassed ourselves or others, I think it a good thing that we be given time to make amends and purge that part of our record.

Ultimately, whatever technical means are employed to "enforce" rules of posting behavior, there will always be exceptions and situations which require attention and individual judgment. Each situation will be different, but ultimately I subscribe to neatone's "this is a great forum/community..i'd hope we can be more understanding of individual needs."

If no good can possibly be served by keeping ill-considered content a user wishes to delete - if it can only hurt him and others - I say let it go.

I also say we probably know that within days - and I don't know of any member whose behavior has been so egregious over so extended a period that ALL his posts (even perfectly innocuous posts on innocent topics from happier times) should disappear.

But there have certainly been entire threads which were so toxic they deserved to disappear.

16

There are valid competing social policies for and against it and the ultimate decision will be made on the basis of which one Bax finds most persuasive.

I agree 100%. My comments are partially motivated by a belief that people are already too quick to abandon any sense of responsibility for their conduct on semi-anonymous social media, so it's hardly a good thing, IMO, to further encourage it by allowing them to erase their posts, especially when doing so can be disruptive. But mostly, I was objecting to the idea that people should feel entitled to control of what they have posted here. That is up to Bax and nobody else.

17

Quelle surprise. In the time it took me to put together a marginally cogent paragraph, Proteus has composed a veritable "War and Peace" addressing the issue of the day.

18

Plus 100. Proteus.

I never saw the original post and I've been confused by the whole mess ever since.

I have to usually stand by what I put in print so I'm careful to hit enter "Usually ." I recently sent an email to NJBob that came off a little snarky and didn't realize it at first. Thanks to social media, I was able to message him to call me and all is well. Text doesn't always translate well, especially when you're a butt head like me. I try not to delete my mistakes and just live by them but committing forum suicide by deleting every post or created post? Why not just leave? (Not meant to sound rude)

19

We here at The Ministry of Truth (Newspeak: Minitrue) object when others attempt to revise history - that's our job. As a great man once said: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” Best left to the professionals, that.

Conversely, we could all just strive to be a bit less dramatic.

20

Afire...sorryman. Maybe I should have edited more! Can I go back and fix it?

Some famous writer apologized in a letter he sent to a correspondent: sorry it was so long, if I had more time I could've made it shorter.

21

I don't want to be misconstrued. I don't want anyone to leave. I'm just presenting a question, hypothetical.

22

It is nice to have thoughtful, well-written posts in a thread like this one to balance out the name-calling, innuendo-laced, emotionally off-kiltered threads that occasionally show up on the GDP. Fortunately, the wacky ones are only occasional.

23

We here at The Ministry of Truth (Newspeak: Minitrue) object when others attempt to revise history - that's our job. As a great man once said: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” Best left to the professionals, that.

Conversely, we could all just strive to be a bit less dramatic.

– Timthom62

RAGE Against The Machine !?!?!

haha

24

Perhaps this is a bit of a detour, but I come down squarely on the side of keeping the records as they are, with certain rare exceptions.

Back in the 80's and 90's I was the senior Research Tech for the BC MVB History Division (I always liked having a govt job, mostly because the employer usually was very flexible and quite indulgent of my musical aspirations).

In those days we strove very hard to keep as much of a full record for each and every automobile registered or formerly registered in the Province. At the time, much of the record was still paper-based, but we were also on the way to getting the entire collection microfilmed (yep, microfilmed. I'm THAT old). When I arrived on the scene in 86, the microfilming project was about 30% complete, so there was still a lot of paper to be had, some of it very old.

Among others, owners and collectors found it very helpful. They could come in and request a "full history" of their 1948 Hudson and within a few days a set of documents would be in their hands (for a reasonable fee of $.25 per) showing the history of the car from the first sale off the dealer lot to the transfer to the current owner. Accident records (for the vehicle, not the driver), even records of so-called "write-offs" were also available, and for many years, you could obtain copies of every significant event in your car's life. Today, it sounds arcane, even to me, but at the time, we had a bit of a booming business for the government, and we actually made a few bucks each fiscal (My Dad took advantage of the service and collected the full history of his prized 66 Skylark Gransport Convertible, whichsame enhanced the value and went with the car when we sold it as part of his estate in 2013.).

Then in 1991, a political decision was made to move responsibility for all these records over to the govt-run insurance agency, but they simply did not have the room (nor apparently, the will) to continue the record-keeping. In the end, the Ins Corp went to Cabinet and obtained an Order in Council (Executive Order) stating the corporation had the right to determine what records to keep and what to throw away. Said company said "seven years is enough" and with that, over three million records were suddenly obsolete (along with the six staff and their supervisor -me- who were in charge of it).

Within a year they were gone. Shredded, packed in banker's boxes and tossed in the back of a series of furniture van size trucks and hauled away to be burned. Before that happened, people lobbied the politicians, the central govt archives, various historical organizations and even the Federales, all to no avail. No one wanted the stuff, and no one was willing to take on the job of continuing the cataloging and at least two newly-minted MBA's left us with the distinct impression the whole thing was a big yawn.

So the records were gone, and once gone, they stayed gone. Now, if someone comes across a beautiful, garage-kept, dust-covered Lincoln Mk2 somewhere in South Surrey, and the owner doesn't have papers, simply taking the serial number to the DMV won't produce any evidence of ownership and life gets a lot more complicated for the would-be buyer.

In a way, that's what the records of our conversations here are- historic documents (paperless) of these days of our lives, the guitars we have owned and coveted, and of the events we are living through. With rare exceptions, they should be permitted to stay in place. Very few are actually so awful that some will still find them offensive ten years from now.


Register Sign in to join the conversation