Deletion discussion

[narya]

I'm going to roll the words "dishonest" and "passive-aggressive" around in my head for a while (yes, I know those words weren't lobbed directly at me, but certainly at a group I used to! belong to), but I will accept that that is the way some of my online buddies thought of my previous! habits. It is amazing how many ways something as simple as posting-- or editing or unposting-- on a messageboard can affect people.

Anthy, I wouldn't even put you in the same room with words like "passive-aggressive and dishonest.

[Primula Baggins]

People delete for many different reasons. It has certainly occurred in the past that people deleted their posts as a passive-aggressive way of getting back at people they were angry at. But that is a very small minority of post deleters.

People may be frustrated when they see one of your posts deleted, Anthy, but no one would think of you as one of the category I named. We just like your posts and want to read them.

[anthriel]

Thank you, guys.

That particular part of my post, upon reading it again last night, looked even to me like I was trying to get people to come out and disagree with it. Fishing for comfort, I guess. I have been guilty of that.

However, I really don't think I am a particularly passive-aggressive poster (maybe we all have our moments! ), and I will flatly argue with the idea of me being a dishonest poster. Since reading this thread, though, those concepts are rolling around in my head. I've learned that deleting posts (which I no longer do!) can LOOK like manifestations of these two behaviors. I am glad to know that, now. I didn't, before.

Since I now am completely uncomfortable editing out thoughts, I didn't take the poorly worded section out, even when I questioned it myself. We must preserve history!

However, this is yet another example of why people do edit; things can read a little differently than they were meant to read. I always know what I *meant* to say, so the way I write sort of looks "right" when I first write it. The way it looks in the cold light of the next read can be quite different.


Anyway, I have probably flagellated this topic long enough. MY fortune cookie last night said "Look to the special in people, not to the weakness". You guys make that pretty easy to do.

[Pearly Di]

Anthy, you are a very transparent person . The word 'dishonesty' does not compute.

Personally, I don't care if you - generic 'you' - deletes. It can be annoying to read a thread which has a lot of deleted posts, though. Perhaps that's what our Jewel was addressing ... a sort of 'culture of deletion' ...

I strongly uphold the right for people to edit.

The Ship of Fools online community gives posters five minutes to edit their posts after posting. If you miss the edit timeline, tough. I think that's hilarious but it's also probably good practice.

[JewelSong]

Perhaps that's what our Jewel was addressing ... a sort of 'culture of deletion' ...

I didn't think of it in those words, but that sort of describes it. I admit, Impy's deletion of a mere LINK - because she felt "intimidated" - was what sparked my initial rant of a post. A sort of "Oops, I might have maybe perhaps sorta kinda offended someone someplace with this...better get rid of it" kind of mentality. It is very distressing to me that someone on this board would feel like that.

I strongly uphold the right for people to edit.

I am very much in favor of editing for grammar or bad wording or whatever. But, if your initial post causes dissension or conflict or (gods forbid, offense!), I am far more in favor of a subsequent post for clarity, rather than chopping up or deleting the original post. I think that is the more...dare I say it...honest way of dialog.

I certainly have no issue with posts being deleted before ever seeing the light of day. That's similar to writing a letter to your ex or your boss and tearing it up without sending it. Sometimes, discretion IS the better part of valor...

The Ship of Fools online community gives posters five minutes to edit their posts after posting. If you miss the edit timeline, tough. I think that's hilarious but it's also probably good practice.

That is really funny, Di. I wonder how that would fly here at HoF?

[Túrin Turambar]

My views on this are probably known, but I agree with Jewel. I can think of a couple of posts that I made which caused offense, some which I was later embarrassed by, and at least one that resulted in eight solid pages of criticism. But once the post is out there it's out there and part of the discussion. I can't unmake it, so the damage is done. And removing it, rather than making the offended people feel better, usually just frustrates all the others.

[JewelSong]

. And removing it, rather than making the offended people feel better, usually just frustrates all the others.

Exactly!

[Cerin]

I don't see any problem with deleting a regretted post very shortly after posting, before there are any replies.

I tend to agree that it is unethical to delete a non-objectionable (that is to say, not violating board policy) post after people have replied to it. This (in effect if not intent) disrespects the time and effort of those who responded and is also like a virtual shirking of responsibility for the effects of one's words (you might retrieve a stone you tossed in a pond, but not the ripples it caused). As an alternative to deleting, one could post a subsequent clarification or apology, or selectively edit the original post to remove particular portions that were ill-considered. I think it is perfectly alright to leave a discussion anytime it becomes burdensome.

I hate the thought of people not posting because they assume no one will reply (thereby insuring that no one will reply). The number of replies does not necessarily indicate how many people have read a post and found it valuable.

Picking up Jewel's comments on complacency and comfort as it relates to posting behaviour, some questions come to mind: Have you ever noticed that some people never or hardly ever reply to some other people's posts, even if their post refers (or is in reply) to something the person said?

I think the approach to messageboards varies by individual. For me, it is encountering ideas first, rather than people or personalities. I'm not a social animal, so this board, having become quite social in my view, is less and less my style (although it will always be dear to my heart). I reply to ideas, which is to say, I reply to that which provokes an answering thought. I don't necessarily acknowledge everyone who comments if I have nothing substantive to say or if that avenue of thought does not draw me in. I don't think it's surprising, in that context, if we tend to reply to certain people more than others and to others rarely; our minds work more similarly to some than to others. Speaking personally, that doesn't mean I'm not aware of everyone and appreciative of their character and contributions.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Cerin! How nice to see you here! I appreciate you weighing in on this. What you say makes a lot of sense.

[Frelga]

Cerin! Good to see you!


Sorry, was that too social? No, really, I wondered how you have been.

[Cerin]

Thanks, guys! I have been fine, but I spend less time at the computer than I used to.

[anthriel]

Hi, Cerin!

I find myself trying to disagree with something you just wrote, so that you can reply to an idea. Trying to cast something out there, to reel in a Cerin thought, because they are always worth reading.

I am, however, having some difficulty with that plan.

I tend to agree that it is unethical to delete a non-objectionable (that is to say, not violating board policy) post after people have replied to it. This (in effect if not intent) disrespects the time and effort of those who responded and is also like a virtual shirking of responsibility for the effects of one's words (you might retrieve a stone you tossed in a pond, but not the ripples it caused). As an alternative to deleting, one could post a subsequent clarification or apology, or selectively edit the original post to remove particular portions that were ill-considered. I think it is perfectly alright to leave a discussion anytime it becomes burdensome.

I agree with all of this, actually. I believe in my own case, if there were responses, I was much more likely to edit out ill-considered parts of a post rather than to delete the post completely; I would often re-word whatever I had written that caused me distress after the fact. I can't remember leaving many (or any?) ellipses, but perhaps I am just blocking.

I would also delete things if I had just posted them (my period of courage being measured, apparently, in seconds), before anyone could reply to, or hopefully even see, my post. Now I am on a strict no-edit/no-delete policy, and find that frequently I will choose to not post at all. This, apparently, is preferential to the messy I'm-trying-to-share-but-it's-just-darned-hard behavior I exhibited in the past.



And I much agree with the word "unethical" rather than "dishonest". I think one can be being completely honest and yet violate someone else's ethical boundaries. Ethics tend to vary based on the reader; the truth is the truth.









(I thought about you recently as we chose new handles for the new cabinets in my new house. You will always be the handles vs. pulls girl, to me)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Now I am on a strict no-edit/no-delete policy, and find that frequently I will choose to not post at all. This, apparently, is preferential to the messy I'm-trying-to-share-but-it's-just-darned-hard behavior I exhibited in the past.

I strongly disagree with this, on the theory that it results in less sharing rather than more. But, of course, this is your choice to make.

[anthriel]

Now I am on a strict no-edit/no-delete policy, and find that frequently I will choose to not post at all. This, apparently, is preferential to the messy I'm-trying-to-share-but-it's-just-darned-hard behavior I exhibited in the past.

I strongly disagree with this, on the theory that it results in less sharing rather than more.

Well, it probably does. But then again, you are all spared my angsty behavior, which is inarguably a plus.

But, of course, this is your choice to make.

I suppose.

[Primula Baggins]

Unquestionably it's your choice, Anthy. But I think you overestimate the effect of your "angsty behavior" on your friends. How harsh are you on your friends in that regard?

I mean.

[WampusCat]

I sorta like your angsty behavior, Anthy. Makes me feel like I'm not the only one.

[samaranth]

I wanted to add a 'me too' here. Narya posted something about two months ago in real time (though I only read it the other day), which I think captures exactly where I'm coming from as well. So 'hear, hear' to the distinctions in how we engage with this board (and the internet in general), and how this has in fact evolved quite dramatically over the past couple of years.

However, the initial point - about self-censorship and deleting posts - is an important one. I'm also one who will chose not to post, rather than post then delete. The problem is too that I'm now so slow at everything, and usually so late to everything too, that conversations have well and truly moved on by the time I actually hit 'submit'. I've long accepted that I'm probably always going to be the last speaker on a subject just because of that!

It's not such an issue here, but on other boards I find it frustrating when I try and catch up on discussions but find half the posts deleted (and not because they were moderated out).

Edited to add: I've posted twice tonight, each time after Wampuscat - and I've forgotten both times to say how much I like your avatar. It's beautifully feline.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But, of course, this is your choice to make.

I suppose.

That is, in my extremely humble opinion, the problem. You grant other people way too much sovereignty over your actions.

[anthriel]

I sorta like your angsty behavior, Anthy. Makes me feel like I'm not the only one.

Okay, you made me smile with that one, KittyWampus.




Hi, sam!!

... and usually so late to everything too, that conversations have well and truly moved on by the time I actually hit 'submit'. I've long accepted that I'm probably always going to be the last speaker on a subject just because of that!

Yes, narya said the same sort of thing, and it is a vexing problem. One of the beauties of a messageboard like this one, actually, is that a conversation can lag for days or weeks and then be revived by another comment (sort of like Cerin did for this one). Maybe those of us who are here more often can be a bit more attuned to new comments on older threads; pick up the conversation as if no time had passed with that odd anachronistic gift of messageboards.


Sir V and Prim: Thank you for your words. You are right, of course. All of my choices here and elsewhere are mine, and mine alone. I accept the consequences of what I choose to do. Or not do.




I have a bit of a hard time not listening to what people are saying, though, especially when it pertains to me. Isn't that what places like this are for? To learn from other people, to read what people write and try to stretch and grow from those words?

There were a lot of rather painful concepts I took from this thread, things I really needed to know, things I probably actually already knew but was trying not to face, things I had to really accept to grow up a little.



anthy on a growth spurt. Huh. At her age.

[Cerin]

Now I am on a strict no-edit/no-delete policy, and find that frequently I will choose to not post at all.

Hi, Anthy! Sometimes I'll compose a post and then realize that ordering my thoughts was enough, and that I don't really have anything pertinent to communicate. But I don't see it as time wasted, even if I end up not posting.