This is barbaric?
 

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

In a quick second.

But at least we have this:

This is hanna-barbaric thread

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:

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.

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.

look, a penny!

steals John's wallet

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.

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.

I agree with stevew.

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

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.

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

*cue stone cold steve austin music*

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

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

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."

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

he probably quit halfway through the test.

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

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

Do it.

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:

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

Now you tell us. ;)

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.

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.

they feel like the man when they delete...

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)

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.

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.

Not for long asshole.

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...

Who are you calling an asshole?

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.

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?

I am a moron. Carry on.

I'm not buying that crappy excuse.

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

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.

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.

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

Reposted so wig could read it.

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.

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.

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

You underestimate me then.

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!

:)

Meanwhile, you can cut the desparation with a knife.

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

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.

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

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. :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmm. A gamble I am willing to take.

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

Where do I sign?

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...

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

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.

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

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

Considering the source this is classic.

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

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

:D

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

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

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

Bite me, you sperm burping wench.










;)

this from the resident cocksucker

dola - evil feels good

Mega-ditto.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

This is barbaric.

Kick the Baby!
Don't kick the Baby!

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.

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?

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????

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.

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.

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.

Second.

word, SkyDog.

word.

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.

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...

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??

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.