This is barbaric?

[John Galt]

I take it the old thread got deleted (or am I blind).

[QuikSand]

In a quick second.

But at least we have this:

This is hanna-barbaric (http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=24047) thread

[John Galt]

Hmmmm . . . this practice of deleting your own thread after a long discussion because you don't like that discussion is very poor form.

[oykib]

Hmmmm . . . this practice of deleting your own thread after a long discussion because you don't like that discussion is very poor form.

Yeah...

Doesn't he realize that PEOPLE LOST POSTS!!!

:rolleyes:

[John Galt]

Yeah...

Doesn't he realize that PEOPLE LOST POSTS!!!

:rolleyes:

I don't care a bit about the lost posts - I care about lost discussions. I don't think that one was that great, but I know people were pretty upset after some Christianity discussion with lots of very lengthy posts got deleted by wig.

That is the poor form I'm talking about. And I'm just hoping the practice doesn't catch on here. If it did, the incentive to make substantial, thorough posts is decreased.

[oykib]

My lost posts comment was an homage to Shorty. I actually agree with you.

[John Galt]

My lost posts comment was an homage to Shorty. I actually agree with you.

I recognized the lost posts reference - the rolled eyes at the end is what threw me off. I'm easily confused and distracted by shiny objects.

[CamEdwards]

look, a penny!

steals John's wallet

[CamEdwards]

dola: I agree with you, John. I think there were a few people who were trying to have an actual discussion, and I didn't mind wading through the junk to read the good posts.

[stevew]

The Junk to actual insightful posts(by both sides) ratio was like 10 parts junk to 1 part non junk. If people hadnt veered way off into space, it wouldnt have gotten deleted.

[wig]

I agree with stevew.

The junk to non-junk ratio is way too high these days.

[John Galt]

The Junk to actual insightful posts(by both sides) ratio was like 10 parts junk to 1 part non junk. If people hadnt veered way off into space, it wouldnt have gotten deleted.

Just because you started the thread does not mean you should delete it when you don't like it. That is weak ass shit.

And who would have thought a partial birth abortion thread with the title "This is barbaric" would turn into a general abortion debate. :rolleyes:

Dumbass.

[John Galt]

I agree with stevew.

The junk to non-junk ratio is way too high these days.

Maybe because you wignored the good posts in the thread, you close minded troll.

[Sun Tzu]

*cue stone cold steve austin music*

[stevew]

It didnt turn into a general abortion debate, It turned into 3 pages of garbage of Chubby calling babies Parasites

[stevew]

Just because you started the thread does not mean you should delete it when you don't like it. That is weak ass shit.

And who would have thought a partial birth abortion thread with the title "This is barbaric" would turn into a general abortion debate. :rolleyes:

Dumbass.

You are insightful at least. I may not agree with you, but you are at least insightful.

[John Galt]

It didnt turn into a general abortion debate, It turned into 3 pages of garbage of Chubby calling babies Parasites

which by the time you deleted the thread, he had stopped doing (when he realized he might be wrong) and there were a lot of other discussions going on.

Your excuses are weak. I really hear, "I just wanted to bait people, but when people made good arguments, I didn't want to hear it anymore - I just wanted to go back to my cave so my woman could cook me dinner. Grunt."

[rkmsuf]

very poor form...Analbumcover didn't even delete his thread after admitting he barely had the intelligence of a second grader...

[John Galt]

very poor form...Analbumcover didn't even delete his thread after admitting he barely had the intelligence of a second grader...

but he did beat the frenchmen.

:D

[rkmsuf]

he probably quit halfway through the test.

[yabanci]

I knew there was a reason I never clicked on that thread.

[Subby]

I challenge everyone on this board to find and delete threads they started that got at least 25 replies.

Do it.

[Axxon]

What I'd like to know is, when you put someone on ignore does it show it somehow on threads that the poster started so you can easily skip them?? I've never in my entire online career, going back to the old bbs days put someone on ignore and I'd hate to do it but I was one of the ones who was pissed at wig's stupidity and now this asshole is keeping the trend going even though they know all it does is piss people off.

I refuse to participate in any threads they start because they're not serious about the topic. They have no credibility as they do this only to enflame. I'd miss reading any replies they make but if this is their mo I doubt I'd be missing much. So, before I ignore them, would that work for the purposes I want? If it wouldn't no point in doing it.

BTW, the main reason I DIDN'T post in that thread was because the guy admitted that he was going to do what he did and so why bother? I'm sure he never even thought that he doomed his own thread to mediocrity by making his stupid little threat. And I'm sure he wonders why the conversation took an offtopic and silly turn. Right. :rolleyes:

[Ryan S]

If people really want a thread to return, we have to power to resurrect it.

[Axxon]

If people really want a thread to return, we have to power to resurrect it.

Now you tell us. ;)

[JAG]

I'll just make a point of copying every large thread posted from now until the end of eternity. If someone deletes it, I'll repost the thread.

I'll leave out the NHL thread though. :)

[Axxon]

I'll just make a point of copying every large thread posted from now until the end of eternity. If someone deletes it, I'll repost the thread.

I'll leave out the NHL thread though. :)

Or maybe we could just start a duplicate thread whenever one of these thread killer types posts something of interest and we could all post in the new thread instead. They might get the point then.

[Tigercat]

What I dont understand is why people don't ignore their threads if they deviate from something they do not care for. When a thread gets multiple responses, the people who make the responses have some form of ownership to the thread also. They invest their time effort and energy in it also, and to delete it just because you think its gone off topic or whatever, thats just saying your threads need a certain kind of response. What kind of endeavor in free speech is that? (Of course, maybe you didn't want free speech, maybe you wanted a specific kind of speech, to each his/her own....)

I wish people could only edit their posts, but only moderators could delete threads all together. (And only delete for the thread starter if it was a specific question or something that is answered to.) But that may be too crazy an idea for some.

[rkmsuf]

they feel like the man when they delete...

[JonInMiddleGA]

What I'd like to know is, when you put someone on ignore does it show it somehow on threads that the poster started so you can easily skip them??
If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no.

Is this what you wanted to know: If you have me on ignore, you will still see any thread I start when you look at the thread listing. (this goes back to one of the reasons I was asking about a possible "ignore thread" mod for vBulletin; that wouldn't eliminate the first viewing, but you wouldn't have it appear in the main thread listing anytime after that)

[stevew]

Its my thread. Only I can decide to do what I want with my thread. You cannot make the decision to make me keep my thread or delete it. I have the freedom to choose.

[Axxon]

If I understand the question correctly, the answer is no.

Is this what you wanted to know: If you have me on ignore, you will still see any thread I start when you look at the thread listing. (this goes back to one of the reasons I was asking about a possible "ignore thread" mod for vBulletin; that wouldn't eliminate the first viewing, but you wouldn't have it appear in the main thread listing anytime after that)

Yeah, that's what I was asking and I think your mod idea would be exceptional. I'd only use it for guys like these but I could see where it would have many more applications.

On the weird side, this is the only thread I've ever had trouble viewing here. It's strange. The page loads part way then hangs. Every time I refresh it hangs at a different spot. If I log out I can view the entire thing as guest so what I've had to do is log out, read the thread, hit reply then log in and it works.

I hope this is an isolated instance because that would suck if I have to start doing that on a larger scale.

[Axxon]

Its my thread. Only I can decide to do what I want with my thread. You cannot make the decision to make me keep my thread or delete it. I have the freedom to choose.


If people really want a thread to return, we have to power to resurrect it.


Not for long asshole.

[rkmsuf]

Its my thread. Only I can decide to do what I want with my thread. You cannot make the decision to make me keep my thread or delete it. I have the freedom to choose.

That's true but that is true about a lot of things.

I have a squirt gun and I can do whatever I want with it...it's mine afterall. I don't show up and squirt everyone in the face at work...but I could.

All those birthday cards you sent me. I feel like coming over and burning them in front of your house...afterall they are mine...

[stevew]

Not for long asshole.

Who are you calling an asshole?

[stevew]

I wouldnt have deleted it, but I got a PM from someone asking that I delete it. So therefore I did. Its not like you didnt have warning.

[Axxon]

Who are you calling an asshole?

Oh I don't know. Someone who does an action that has no support except for the boards most notorious troll and then proudly thumps his chest and proclaims that it's his right to do so notwithstanding how negatively his actions are seen. You know, someone whose sole purpose is to incite people and feel big because he can do it.

Anyone come to mind, hmmm??

[stevew]

Oh I don't know. Someone who does an action that has no support except for the boards most notorious troll and then proudly thumps his chest and proclaims that it's his right to do so notwithstanding how negatively his actions are seen. You know, someone whose sole purpose is to incite people and feel big because he can do it.

Anyone come to mind, hmmm??

Axxon?

[The Afoci]

I am a moron. Carry on.

[John Galt]

I wouldnt have deleted it, but I got a PM from someone asking that I delete it. So therefore I did. Its not like you didnt have warning.

I'm not buying that crappy excuse.

And if that PM was from wig, it doesn't count.

[Butter]

Its my thread. Only I can decide to do what I want with my thread. You cannot make the decision to make me keep my thread or delete it. I have the freedom to choose.

Oh, the irony of saying this in a discussion about an abortion thread. If only I believed you had the intelligence to do this intentionally.

[Axxon]

Axxon?

Damn son, if you're going to play the troll game at least bring something to the table. This is some weak smack you're dishing. Say, you'd better delete this ...oops, you can't. Sorry.

[Axxon]

I'm not buying that crappy excuse.

And if that PM was from wig, it doesn't count.

Curse you John you beat me to it. :D :D

[Butter]

I agree with stevew.

The junk to non-junk ratio is way too high these days.

Maybe because you wignored the good posts in the thread, you close minded troll.

Reposted so wig could read it.

[stevew]

I'm not buying that crappy excuse.

And if that PM was from wig, it doesn't count.

It wasnt from Wig. It was from another poster who can come forward or not. Id forward what he sent me to you, but you'd probably think I fixed it up or something.

[John Galt]

Oh, the irony of saying this in a discussion about an abortion thread. If only I believed you had the intelligence to do this intentionally.

Even moreso by the fact that a decent portion of that thread was explaining to Chubby that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

[stevew]

Damn son, if you're going to play the troll game at least bring something to the table. This is some weak smack you're dishing. Say, you'd better delete this ...oops, you can't. Sorry.

Oh, no......Dont break out the "son" on me. Im scurred.

[stevew]

Oh, the irony of saying this in a discussion about an abortion thread. If only I believed you had the intelligence to do this intentionally.

You underestimate me then.

[Axxon]

Oh, the irony of saying this in a discussion about an abortion thread. If only I believed you had the intelligence to do this intentionally.

Possibly the best quote I've ever read on FOFC. It would qualify for QOTM except it makes no sense out of context. Anyway, great job!

:)

[Axxon]

Oh, no......Dont break out the "son" on me. Im scurred.

Meanwhile, you can cut the desparation with a knife.

[CamEdwards]

all we need now is for Axxon to threaten to kick stevew's ass (or the other way around)... you know, in real life.


the internet, she does make dorks of us all

[The Afoci]

You underestimate me then.

So you did something you felt was necassary no matter what others think and use the excuse that it is your right. Yep, we underestimate you.

[rkmsuf]

No it was the PM's fault otherwise we'd still be debating...

[Axxon]

all we need now is for Axxon to threaten to kick stevew's ass (or the other way around)... you know, in real life.


the internet, she does make dorks of us all

Only because it's fun once in a while. :)

In this case it wouldn't be though. Stevew really is out of his league as a troll. Now BillyMadison ( i think that was his name ), there was a troll who would threaten to kick someones ass and threaten it properly. :)

[John Galt]

No it was the PM's fault otherwise we'd still be debating...

If it was the PM's fault, we have to outlaw PM's. Down with private messenging!

[Axxon]

No it was the PM's fault otherwise we'd still be debating...


It was Callahan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CamEdwards]

If it was the PM's fault, we have to outlaw PM's. Down with private messenging!

Mr. Ashcroft's on line one, John. Something about a job offer....

[Axxon]

Mr. Ashcroft's on line one, John. Something about a job offer....

Does he need someone to watch porn?? John, you lucky bastage.

[Calis]

You know who's really the loser in all this arguing?

The Barbarians..their name has been drug through the mud.

[Butter]

You underestimate me then.

Mmmm. A gamble I am willing to take.

[John Galt]

Does he need someone to watch porn?? John, you lucky bastage.

Hmmmmm . . . watching porn all day in exchange for sacrificing all my core beliefs about free speech and the Constitution.

Where do I sign?

[wig]

I don't see what the big deal is here.

Someone starts a topic because they want to discuss something. If the discussion gets way off what the original person wanted to talk about, what use is the thread anymore?

Some of you take this way too seriously.

[rkmsuf]

I don't see what the big deal is here.

Someone starts a topic because they want to discuss something. If the discussion gets way off what the original person wanted to talk about, what use is the thread anymore?

Some of you take this way too seriously.

that is terribly short sighted and selfish. What if the discussion takes a turn other than what you have intended and others are discussing things important to them. Just so you can flex your muscles you delete the thing and make people start all over?

Don't keep reading the thread if it goes off course...

[wig]

I guess I just don't see it the same way as you all.

[Axxon]

I don't see what the big deal is here.

Someone starts a topic because they want to discuss something. If the discussion gets way off what the original person wanted to talk about, what use is the thread anymore?

Some of you take this way too seriously.

Others who have invested their time and efforts in constructive conversation don't particularly care to have that effort wasted to please one person. Lets see, one person stops reading a thread or everybodies efforts are down the drain. Which is the lesser deal.

Of course, you already know this.

[wig]

Instead of hijacking the topic, it might be better to just start a new one.

[Axxon]

I guess I just don't see it the same way as you all.

Well, first you'd have to post something worth the time and effort I'd suppose. ;)

[Axxon]

Instead of hijacking the topic, it might be better to just start a new one.

Considering the source this is classic.

[John Galt]

Instead of hijacking the topic, it might be better to just start a new one.

Instead of being a self-absorbed little troll, it might be better for you to just abandon the thread you started.

[Subby]

The irony is that this thread is much funnier and more entertaining than the one that got axed...

:D

[Fritz]

John, your "love humanity" position is perilously close to being exposed as a sham.

[Butter]

Did you know that threads only a page and a half long still feel pain when deleted?

[Axxon]

The irony is that this thread is much funnier and more entertaining than the one that got axed...

:D

True but then again it's worth the time and effort to make it that way; we know that John isn 't going to pull it just to get his jollies. He has that Ashcroft porn gig for that. :D

[John Galt]

John, your "love humanity" position is perilously close to being exposed as a sham.

Bite me, you sperm burping wench.










;)

[Fritz]

this from the resident cocksucker http://www.buffworks.com/s/simmons/simmons.gif
Bite me, you sperm burping wench.










;)

[Fritz]

dola - evil feels good

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't see what the big deal is here.
Mega-ditto.

[Glengoyne]

Again JG has completely summarized my feelings on a topic. Several times in this thread, even using the same words I would. From "poor form" to "weak ass shit" I am in agreement. He seems to be thinking so clearly today, I'll even sign off on Fritz belching sperm.

[Jon]

Its my thread. Only I can decide to do what I want with my thread. You cannot make the decision to make me keep my thread or delete it. I have the freedom to choose.


But it's not really "your" thread. Once you start the thread, you are introducing your ideas to everyone who can see it. Everyone who views it has the right to make any contribution they desire and you have no right to judge the value of it.
That's the beauty of the marketplace of ideas -- everyone who wants to have a say, gets to post, so EVERYONE can judge it's merit, not just the thread poster. If you want to have a thread where you want to control the posts and the content, then keep it to yourself.

[druez]

I'm sure there is an option where only "mods" can delete threads. If you make a thread, live with the results....

[Bonegavel]

So what members should be on our "beware: deletes posts" list?

Strange that this should come up in light of another thread about Ashcroft and porn. I see how it can piss a whole lot of people off when the thread-originator deletes a thread, but it is a "law" on this board, so shouldn't it be ok?

Instead of being pissed at the knuckle-heads, get mad at Ryan for allowing this behaviour that you don't approve of.

[John Galt]

So what members should be on our "beware: deletes posts" list?

Strange that this should come up in light of another thread about Ashcroft and porn. I see how it can piss a whole lot of people off when the thread-originator deletes a thread, but it is a "law" on this board, so shouldn't it be ok?

Instead of being pissed at the knuckle-heads, get mad at Ryan for allowing this behaviour that you don't approve of.

I think there are good reasons for allowing people to delete their own threads: accidentally created a new thread, creating a redundant thread, etc. It would be a burden on the moderators to have to clean up all those mistakes, so why not let people police themselves? I guess wig and stevew are the answer to that question.

[Bonegavel]

I think there are good reasons for allowing people to delete their own threads: accidentally created a new thread, creating a redundant thread, etc. It would be a burden on the moderators to have to clean up all those mistakes, so why not let people police themselves? I guess wig and stevew are the answer to that question.
Not bad points.

Hmmm... what if there was a new rule enacted where things continued as normal (i.e. can delete whatever) but if 51% of the thread participants petition, it would be reinstated?

Sounds kind of silly, but if there was at least a rule set down in stone, it wouldn't seem to single out wig/stevew. The rule should apply to everyone.

[John Galt]

Not bad points.

Hmmm... what if there was a new rule enacted where things continued as normal (i.e. can delete whatever) but if 51% of the thread participants petition, it would be reinstated?

Sounds kind of silly, but if there was at least a rule set down in stone, it wouldn't seem to single out wig/stevew. The rule should apply to everyone.

Personally, I don't think this whole thing is that big of a deal (despite being the one who started this thread). If people want to delete their own threads, let them. I just want to call them dumbasses when they do.

[Huckleberry]

This is barbaric (http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/04/04/49497774.shtml?Element_ID=49497774).

[John Galt]

This is barbaric (http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/04/04/49497774.shtml?Element_ID=49497774).

Kick the Baby!
Don't kick the Baby!

[Axxon]

Not bad points.

Hmmm... what if there was a new rule enacted where things continued as normal (i.e. can delete whatever) but if 51% of the thread participants petition, it would be reinstated?

Sounds kind of silly, but if there was at least a rule set down in stone, it wouldn't seem to single out wig/stevew. The rule should apply to everyone.

It seems that this would also put a burden on the moderators.

How often do people delete threads anyway? I woudn't think it is often but I don't know. I think I've deleted one thread in the entire time I've been here and it was because it was an obscure question that was of no interest and had been answered. If most use the feature sparingly and responsibly I'd think a few requests every so often would actually be less work than the full blown fiasco that would accompany trying to vote on threads started by stevew or wig although that would be more entertaining.

[Daimyo]

I thought the FOBL forums used to behave such that if the thread starter deleted their first post it didn't delete the whole thread but just that first post. It makes it look confusing, but it might be a better solution that what is here now.

Or perhaps you can set it so that you can only delete a thread within one hour of creating it or something?

[The Afoci]

I say that you have to mail Ryan or Skydog one of your balls everytime you delete a thread or they bring it back.

[Axxon]

I say that you have to mail Ryan or Skydog one of your balls everytime you delete a thread or they bring it back.

But that really wouldn't be an option for the two posters in question. Can't send in what you don't have after all. What do you do in cases like that????

[Ksyrup]

Personally, I don't think this whole thing is that big of a deal (despite being the one who started this thread). If people want to delete their own threads, let them. I just want to call them dumbasses when they do.
I agree. It's more of a common courtesy thing, and if people don't want to respect the time and effort others have invested in a thread, than there's not much you can do about it other than allow that fact to shape your opinion of that person. Like when someone pulls out in front of you, you get angry about it, file it away along with a picture of their face, and shake your head. But actually doing something about it is pointless and time-consuming, and doesn't really amount to much.

[Ben E Lou]

Whatever y'all want on this one is fine with me. I just looked, and six threads have been deleted in the past seven days. One of them was the "Friday fun with posts" one, which was clearly going to be deleted from the start. I saw two that would be considered "controversial" deletions that wouldn't have happened had mod-only deletion been the rule here. The other three were short-lived threads. Frankly, looking at those three, if we were dealing with mod-deletion only, I'll bet that no more than one of the thread starters would have gone through the trouble of PMing Ryan or me to get us to delete their threads. There wasn't that much of a compelling reason to do so. Point being, I'll bet I'd only end up having to delete no more than one or two threads a week, so it wouldn't really be a burden. However, there is something to be said for letting the user maintain that control. So, here are the options:

1. Leave things as they are. Anyone can delete their own thread at any time, and mods take no action.

2. Mods step in from time-to-time and undelete threads when there is a public outcry. (Yes, we can do that with the new software. Until a thread is "removed" (which I think only an admin can do), it can be restored.

3. Change it so that only mods can delete threads.

PROBLEM WITH OPTION 1:
People could invest a lot of time and energy into a thread, and have all those thoughts deleted, as has happened. I can understand why that would be annoying. (The "too-much-additional-work-for-mods" issue doesn't appear to be a problem.)

PROBLEMS WITH OPTION 2:
a. How to determine when to undeleted a thread? Having a vote just creates bureaucracy.
b. What about the "self-policing" nature of it? In the most recent situation, a case could have been made that the deleted thread should have been closed anyway, due to all the sniping and fighting going on therein.

PROBLEM WITH OPTION 3:
Just seems too restrictive. It feels like "punishing" everyone because two people did something to upset others.


Here's my thought/suggestion: In all the time I've been at The Sideline/FOFC, this has only been an issue twice. Considering all the other things that have been issues multiple times, it seems like we have a pretty good track record on this. I think we should leave things the way they are, and count on each other to be respectful of the time and energy that others have put into threads that we started.

Just my $0.02.

[Chubby]

I'm still of the belief that public embarassment is the best remedy for this (as is the case in this instance) sort of thing.

[QuikSand]

I think we should leave things the way they are, and count on each other to be respectful of the time and energy that others have put into threads that we started.

Second.

[wig]

word, SkyDog.

word.

[Axxon]

Whatever y'all want on this one is fine with me. I just looked, and six threads have been deleted in the past seven days. One of them was the "Friday fun with posts" one, which was clearly going to be deleted from the start. I saw two that would be considered "controversial" deletions that wouldn't have happened had mod-only deletion been the rule here. The other three were short-lived threads. Frankly, looking at those three, if we were dealing with mod-deletion only, I'll bet that no more than one of the thread starters would have gone through the trouble of PMing Ryan or me to get us to delete their threads. There wasn't that much of a compelling reason to do so. Point being, I'll bet I'd only end up having to delete no more than one or two threads a week, so it wouldn't really be a burden. However, there is something to be said for letting the user maintain that control. So, here are the options:

1. Leave things as they are. Anyone can delete their own thread at any time, and mods take no action.

2. Mods step in from time-to-time and undelete threads when there is a public outcry. (Yes, we can do that with the new software. Until a thread is "removed" (which I think only an admin can do), it can be restored.

3. Change it so that only mods can delete threads.

PROBLEM WITH OPTION 1:
People could invest a lot of time and energy into a thread, and have all those thoughts deleted, as has happened. I can understand why that would be annoying. (The "too-much-additional-work-for-mods" issue doesn't appear to be a problem.)

PROBLEMS WITH OPTION 2:
a. How to determine when to undeleted a thread? Having a vote just creates bureaucracy.
b. What about the "self-policing" nature of it? In the most recent situation, a case could have been made that the deleted thread should have been closed anyway, due to all the sniping and fighting going on therein.

PROBLEM WITH OPTION 3:
Just seems too restrictive. It feels like "punishing" everyone because two people did something to upset others.


Here's my thought/suggestion: In all the time I've been at The Sideline/FOFC, this has only been an issue twice. Considering all the other things that have been issues multiple times, it seems like we have a pretty good track record on this. I think we should leave things the way they are, and count on each other to be respectful of the time and energy that others have put into threads that we started.

Just my $0.02.

My problem with your suggestion is the last line is exactly why this could be a problem. At least one of the thread deleters in question hasn't exactly shown respect for fellow posters. That's asking a lot to expect not to mention it doesn't take into account posters who may come in the future.

Is it possible to do a time limit on deleting posts?? Some boards have that capability and it would allow someone to delete mistakes or what have you but not wipe out pages of dialog at a whim. That would be my vote if possible. If not, I'd have to think about the options presented as all of them have plusses and minuses.

[Ben E Lou]

Is it possible to do a time limit on deleting posts?? Some boards have that capability and it would allow someone to delete mistakes or what have you but not wipe out pages of dialog at a whim. That would be my vote if possible. If not, I'd have to think about the options presented as all of them have plusses and minuses.Actually I didn't think about that. I think I remember seeing an option to do just that in the Control Panel. Going to check now...

[Ben E Lou]

Yes, there is such an option. However, it is tied to editing posts as well. It would mean setting a time limit after which users could neither edit nor delete their posts.

[Axxon]

Yes, there is such an option. However, it is tied to editing posts as well. It would mean setting a time limit after which users could neither edit nor delete their posts.

How flexible is the time limit? Surely there's a break even point beyond which people don't tend to edit posts??

[daedalus]

I third QS' second on Ben's suggestion. The hands-off nature of the moderators, past and present, has always been very appealing to me and, I believe, has played a big part in shaping this board.

I would just suggest ignoring threads started by people who are known to have done this. We know who they are by now and it won't make sense to commit any amount of time or thought to a thread those people have started.

A possible solution would be if someone else decide that their action is worth following, perhaps we can ask Ben or Ryan to temporarily un-delete said thread so that we can retrieve the posts for a new thread before allowing them to return to thread-afterlife as the thread-starter intend. I hate asking Ben and Ryan to do even more work but, hopefully, it'll be rare enough that it won't be much of a bother.

[Calis]

Yes, there is such an option. However, it is tied to editing posts as well. It would mean setting a time limit after which users could neither edit nor delete their posts.

Ack, I would hate to lose the ability to edit, especially for dynasties and stuff.

I would vote for just leaving it alone. I think the vast majority of the time it hasn't been "abused" if you want to call it that. I think if someone does delete a post they really shouldn't, they will get theirs in the end, as evident here.

[Glengoyne]

I think we should leave things the way they are, and count on each other to be respectful of the time and energy that others have put into threads that we started.

Just my $0.02.

NO!

I say we over react!

[JonInMiddleGA]

My problem with your suggestion is the last line is exactly why this could be a problem. At least one of the thread deleters in question hasn't exactly shown respect for fellow posters. That's asking a lot to expect not to mention it doesn't take into account posters who may come in the future.
Alright, this is probably going to come off like I'm yelling at you, but I swear that's not my intention ( if I was seriously torqued at you, do you believe I'd really leave much doubt about it or bother to deny/conceal it? http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
That said, I suspect I'm probably going to border on a rant here, just not one that's meant to be personal. I don't believe you're wholly alone in your opinion on this, so I've got no intention of singling you out. Your post just happens to be the one with the soundbite that tripped my trigger.

This has got to be one of the most absurd worries I've ever seen expressed on a message board/forum/bulletin board. And considering some the of forums I've frequented over the years, that's covering a lot of ground.

It's a thread on a message board. It's not Mount Rushmore, it's not etched on stone tablets. Hell, it only exists on one of the more unstable & least enduring forms of media ever devised. That doesn't make it less "real" (an different argument that I suspect we might agree on, btw) but the notion that 99% of what takes place here has any degree of permanence or even any significant degree of importance strikes me as pretentious at the very least.

If SD or Ryan decides to ban my ass forever & ever, starting tomorrow, whether its for great cause or no cause at all, I'd miss the gaming info I get from here, I'd miss a reasonable number of individuals, but I'd get over it. Frankly, I'd probably get over it pretty quickly, and I suspect that deep down inside, most people here could probably say roughly the same thing.
That's not meant to unfairly diminish anyone or anything here, it's just reality -- what goes on elsewhere in my life ultimately carries far greater weight than what goes on here.

So, with that in mind, I can't for the life of me fathom why there's anything much more than a quickly batted eyelash about the disappearance of a post, or a thread, or even 20 pages worth of average material (I'll conceed that there are unusual occasions that I might qualify as exceptions to that generality).

Last time I checked, the thread in question contained something that could largely be categorized as "yet another round-and-round on/around the topic of abortion". Nowhere in the thread was any sort of resolution to the controversy that perpetually surrounds the topic, nor did the thread contain a scientific formula that would produce a cure for cancer, nor did it contain a definitive answer to the question of whether height matters for WR's in FOF2k4. In other words, nothing that hasn't been done 1000's of times around the internet before, and probably 100's or even 1000's of times just since the thread was deleted.

As far as I can tell, you're genuinely disturbed by this event. I just can't for the life of me grasp why. I'd liken it to being sincerely disturbed & genuinely upset by the fact that you don't have a quality audio recording of your last transaction at a McDonald's drive-thru (as well as a backup copy in a fireproof safe).

I'm not for a moment denying you the right to be upset by it, I'm just saying that I can't for the life of me make any sense of why you believe it really matters enough to invest more than about 30 seconds worrying about.

[Axxon]

I'm not for a moment denying you the right to be upset by it, I'm just saying that I can't for the life of me make any sense of why you believe it really matters enough to invest more than about 30 seconds worrying about.

For the most part, I try and keep everything I write, good or bad. I like it as a record of where my mind was at, what my style was etc. I look back on it and laugh sometimes, cringe sometimes at the dreck, have fond memories that have nothing to do whatever with what I wrote, etc.

I guess I've been spoiled by dejanews, now google news but I still occasionally look back on stuff that I wrote in the mid to late nineties. I have a trunk in my house filled with nothing but notebooks, most of it short ramblings of no particular import or even game notes from long forgotten games, many I don't even recognize. I do look at it fairly often and sometimes even add stuff. I enjoy it.

Now, if the board goes down and stuff gets lost as happened when we moved here then it's no biggie, but when recent posts get axed for no reason and it's easily preventable then I'm for preventing it.

Now, it's happened again in less than a month and knowing the nature of this board ( see all the dumbass parody threads ) it's certain to happen again and most likely soon. If some simple steps can be taken to prevent this then why not?

That said, I've really not been ranting on this thread. I did rant about the religion one being yanked but that has passed. I didn't even post in this thread. I'm sorry that my interest has been interpreted this way or even that I have that much emotion tied into it. I suggest you look at the thread I started about wig if you are curious about the difference. :)

I'll of course go with whatever the group decides. It's not really important but for me anyway, the fun of being on the board is lessened.

Finally, I don't take what you said in the wrong way, Jon. We are certainly on different sides of the ideological fence but I respect your opinions and the way you express them.

Now get off my back !!!!! :)

[Pumpy Tudors]

Well, nobody asked for my opinion, but I like the idea of just ignoring threads from the people who are known to delete them. That is, if it bothers you to have this sort of thing happen, you can just ignore the ones who cause the problems. Doesn't that effectively solve it?

[Butter]

nor did the thread contain a scientific formula that would produce a cure for cancer

I was near posting one, then when I tried, I got an error message since the thread was gone.

Back in the vault she goes.

[Bonegavel]

Personally I don't care about losing threads, posts, whatever. I just saw an issue and offered a suggestion.

Ultimately, I feel it should be caveat scriptor.