Deleting Threads?

Website Policy and Announcements
1

I received an email message from thinkonaut informing me that HE decided to have HIS(?) thread on Circular Time deleted from the forum. I simply do not get this. How does some other poster decide for me what posts of mine will not appear on this forum? The entire thread seems to have disappeared. What is the policy here? If you do not like the way a thread has turned out do you just ask a moderator to delete the entire thread? I spent time and effort on that thread and I do not appreciate having my time and effort go to waste by having the entire thread removed.

Would GC please clarify the forum policy here.

2

I received an email message from thinkonaut informing me that HE decided to have HIS(?) thread on Circular Time deleted from the forum. I simply do not get this. How does some other poster decide for me what posts of mine will not appear on this forum? The entire thread seems to have disappeared. What is the policy here? If you do not like the way a thread has turned out do you just ask a moderator to delete the entire thread?  I spent time and effort on that thread and I do not appreciate having my time and effort go to waste by having the entire thread removed.

Would GC please clarify the forum policy here.

The thread in question now seems to have reappeared. GC, will you please explain what is going on? And, please answer my question in regard to forum policy on this.

3

The thread in question now seems to have reappeared. GC, will you please explain what is going on? And, please answer my question in regard to forum policy on this.

Sorry Stephen, I’m sorta busy with work. I will reply when I get a chance later tonight.

4

Whatever is decided for the Circular Time thread, as a matter of setting future policy, I’m in favor of giving the author of an essay in the Essay section the prerogative to withdraw his essay and have the thread deleted. Others may have different preferences, but I think the author should be seen as the “host” of what amounts to a mini-forum, and that those who post on that thread look to that particular author to set the tone and ground rules of the thread, just as a lecturer would do if giving a talk in person.

If the thread ends up being deleted, individual posters should know that they need to keep copies of their posts so that they can re-post them in another format on some other thread if they choose.

As for the Circular Time thread, it was becoming something that wasn’t my cup of tea and something I hadn’t bargained for. All I wanted to do was find people who might be able to stimulate my thinking in the area and perhaps make new friends. I wasn’t looking to get into brash discussions. Especially frustrating is that I am sure that the brashness resulted from miscommunication.

Certainly the author of any post in whatever part of this Web site should have the prerogative to delete his post, since the author retains the copyright to his own words. If the prerogative is not given to withdraw one’s own words, it could be legally demanded, unless it is made clear that people are losing the copyright to their words when they post. In that case, I won’t post in the future.

5

I don’t see any argument at all for allowing a person who initiates a thread to mandate deletion of posts written by others in a thread. Even if such a policy were adopted, it could not rightly be implemented retroactively because the implicit assumption on these boards is that you at most own the material that you have written (note that you cannot edit someone else’s posts if you are a thread initiator, nor do you have to request permission from the thread initiator to edit your own posts). If a future policy were implemented explicitly stating that, henceforth, the initiator of a thread has the right to delete the entire thread, then potential posters would know that their posts are always “at risk” and could decide on an individual basis whether it is worth it to them to post any replies. My opinion is that it would not be, unless I know the initiator well enough to know that he would never demand the deletion of a thread. The alternative would be for each reply to become a separate thread, which would of course make the board virtually unuseable. There is also a questionable assumption that the initiator of a thread has some special place in terms of rights to other people’s material. An equally “valid” rule would be that the most prolific poster becomes the owner of the thread; or the most insightful. I’d be happy to ajudicate the latter question :smiley:

The author of a post does retain a limited right of deletion, under the 1-hour editing rule, and I’ve seen a couple of cases where it has been exercised by total deletion (leaving behind a perfunctory stub). That rule can be seen as a policy statement regarding the extent to which a person abandons their claim to material posted here, though not a very comprehensive or explicit one and also not a prominently displayed one (I think it should be included in “Our Policies”). In fact, for the protection of the board and its owner (not that I think there is actually a lot of threat of problems), it would be a good idea to state an explicit policy regarding author’s rights.

I am generally opposed to allowing any deletions, especially under the conditions that “thinkonaut” has articulated, namely dissatisfaction with the result. If an author posts something that they no longer agree with, they can repudiate their earlier position; or they can simply walk away silently. It is a fact that when you say something, it can can have unintended consequences – that’s reality. Deleting posts is faking reality: if you did not want to post those words and live with the consequences, then you should not press the submit button. The fact that you (anyone) did is a fact, and you should not pretend that it did not happen – nor should you make it appear as though it did not happen. In addition, deleting posts willy-nilly can render a thread incoherent (though this can be guarded against by responders quoting extensively from whatever they are replying to, to guarantee that context is maintained).

There is one legitimate reason for authors to retain some control over material that they post here, which is that you don’t want the fact of posting here to preclude later commercial exploitation, so for example if Don decides to develop some of his material into a book, his “Broken Units” essay remains his to publish, even though it is posted here. For this reason, I would not support a policy whereby all submissions to this board become the property of, say, GC. This result (keeping the right to commercially exploit) is guaranteed by the fact that the author does retain copyright to his work. Retaining copyright does not mean retaining absolute control. Publishers acquire a license right when they publish material, and it is not necessary for an author to abandon copyright. Thus I retain the copyright to everything everything I have ever published, but have licensed the publishers to distribute the materials. Because of that license, I do not have the right to demand the destruction of all existing copies of works that contain my writings.

Since there is no explicit license statement here, the legal waters are extremely murky.

6

No one should be able to withdraw his writings on this forum after others have replied to it. Not even by deleting only his own writings.

I think an hour after a message is posted, it should stay on forever. People should think good and hard before they post something, and if they later change their mind they should indicate it in a new post.

7

Thanks for saving me a lot of typing, David. I agree that the author of a thread should not retain the privilege to delete it.

Regarding copyright, the author of a post does retain it, but he cannot demand that any previously published material be removed because the post becomes a matter of public record, just like a public speech or newspaper story.

8

Just to be clear, I have not changed my position on the content of what I put on the Circular Time thread.

There may well be some kind of public record aspect to this, but I’m not sure I have granted the forum the right to put my name up in perpetuity under a format that amounts to republishing my essay everyday.

There’s two issues here, one, deciding what was implicit before, and two, deciding what to do in the future. As for the first case, since David did delete the Circular Time thread per my request (even though he reinstated it), that shows that in his mind he had already granted me the prerogative of at least removing my essay, if not the whole thread. Even if the whole thread is deleted, people can still re-post what they said in another format.

As for the second case, deciding what to do from now on, I strongly recommend allowing the possibility of some sort of mini-forum where the host (the author of an essay) has a degree of control. This is how it would be at a live lecture. The doors aren’t thrown open to every passer by on the street to come in and derail the proceedings. Even if a participant has good intentions, a lecturer needs to have a certain degree of control over what is happening because an intellectual product is being created. As egoists, we should know that collective production does not work.

Yes, the forum belongs to David and since he has the ultimate say, then it is not collectivism. But *if* he chooses not to exercise much control, it would be analogous to someone buying a piece of land and retaining ownership of it while allowing a commune to be established on it. Perhaps a different analogy would be more illuminating, for example, the case of a newspaper publisher who just lets anyone and everyone have a say over what goes in the paper based on who shows up at the door. I wouldn’t buy such a newspaper.

So far he has banned people for being irrational, and I applaud that. However, I still believe that it would be desirable to have a portion of this site set aside where the author of a thread is allowed to set the tone and ground rules of the discussion. People could certainly choose not to participate in that part of the site if they don’t like the idea.

9

From the what I know about discussion board software in general, thinkonaut’s idea about a mini-forum requires moderator status to be granted to the author for only that particular thread, automatically if possible. I am certain that this is impossible with phpbb (I use it on my own site), but I’m not sure if it is with Invision Power Board, though I doubt it is. Usually, moderator status is granted to a user for an entire forum, such as Aesthetics or Science, not just a particular thread.

If an author would really like total control over the discussion of his essay, then why not create a blog or livejournal (both free services) elsewhere and host the essay both on this site and the blog? A link can be included at the bottom of the essay with a brief statement indicating that all discussion of this essay will be had there.

This is, of course, if GC doesn’t mind.

10

Certainly the author of any post in whatever part of this Web site should have the prerogative to delete his post …

The posts made to this forum are part of the historical record. Giving posters the “prerogative” of deleting their posts is giving posters permission to obliterate reality. This forum, by nature, is a social interaction, and postings made by one person affect what is said by another. Deleting postings is also an attempt to break a causal chain.

If you say something you regret, or otherwise change your mind, you are always free to write a post clarifying your current thoughts and position. But deleting a post is making believe that what previously occurred, did not happen at all.

11

Sorry Stephen, I’m sorta busy with work. I will reply when I get a chance later tonight.

Okay. But now you have responded, though not directly to me and my questions. Piecing together comments made by you and others, does the following reflect the facts?

  1. You originally deleted the thread as per the request of thinkonaut but then changed your mind and reinstated the entire thread?

  2. Is the current forum policy that posters have no say over having threads deleted and, in general, all of the postings will remain as part of the historical record of the forum? (Here I am excluding what I think you stated some time ago, that sometimes you delete threads because they are obvious trolls, or totally irrelevant, or some such criteria as that.)

Is this correct?

12

The posts made to this forum are part of the historical record. Giving posters the “prerogative” of deleting their posts is giving posters permission to obliterate reality.

I disagree. A record could be left stating that a post was deleted. The reality is that it was available for viewing during a certain time frame, but afterwards was not available.

If I attached a political poster to the outside of my house and my neighbor responded by posting a message on the outside of his house, would he have cause to complain that I was “obliterating reality” if I removed it? He could complain that people would not understand why his poster was there or what the words on it meant.

To make such a complaint would be to confuse mental reality with physical reality. The poster had a world line of a certain length. It existed in space and time.

Of course, we are talking about putting posters up on David’s house and not our separate houses, but the analysis is the same. The only question is who has the intellectual property rights to the posters and thus has the legal prerogative to remove them? If David decides to set up a contract where people agree to have their messages posted in perpetuity, then everyone is forewarned and may choose to participate or not participate accordingly.

Since the issue was not made explicit when I created my Circular Time thread, it remains a legal issue as to whether I can insist that the thread and/or my essay be removed. Since David already *did* delete it, I’m inclined to conclude that he has changed whatever implicit agreement we started with and doesn’t necessarily have the legal right to simply undelete it. That is the legal issue to be decided.

If I’m Martin Luther, and David has agreed to let me nail a document to his front door, does he have the legal right to insist that it remain there in perpetuity, even though he and I did not discuss the issue? I doubt it.

13

Since the issue was not made explicit when I created my Circular Time thread, it remains a legal issue as to whether I can insist that the thread and/or my essay be removed. 

Fine. Take it to your lawyer. And, while you are at it, why not ask Harry Binswanger to recall from his subscribers some of your postings. (Everyone, now, on the count of three, return thinkonaut’s postings back to HBL where they will be electronically shredded so as not to leave a trace of their existence. :frowning: )

This is all just too absurd to take seriously anymore.

14

This is all just too absurd to take seriously anymore.

I’d like to see some argumentation, instead of just assertions. That’s one of the reasons I prefer that the entire Circular Time thread be deleted. It’s just clouded up with too much non-argumentation. *I’m* the one who doesn’t want to fake reality, which is what I’d be doing if I continued to participate in the thread, pretending that the thread is edifying to the reader. Since I can’t selectively clean it up, the only thing I can do is to ask for the whole thing to be removed.

Would you say that a judge is attempting to fake reality when he has comments stricken from the court record? Obviously not, because the purpose of the stenographer’s notes is *not* to create a precise historical record, but to produce a document that enables the jury to accomplish their task.

Likewise, the purpose of a forum such as this one should not primarily be a historical one. The purpose should be to provide edifying content to the readers. That means it would be better if the moderators hacked away at unresponsive and evasive posts that clutter up threads.

To *not* have a policy of insisting on edifying content while cutting loose only the most egregious offenders is to support the kind of collective decision making exhibited by the Taggart Transcontinental Board of Directors.

Why would I want to offer my work to be trampled upon by such a process? The thread wound up becoming an intellectual train wreck.

Take my word for it, this Web site is going to perish if someone doesn’t start exercising some editorial control. That’s why Dr. Binswanger’s list is thriving and why I have no problem participating in his group. He’s being an egoist and allowing me to be one, too.

Enough of this biting-one’s-nose-to-spite-one’s-face stuff. We need each other in order to more effectively fight the larger battle. Do we want Objectivism to win, or do we want to score debating points against each other? Ayn Rand wrote once that she gave up debating of that sort. We should follow suit.

I just looked at the bottom of the home page of this site and it said there were 291 visitors at the moment and 14 members accessing the site. Those are 291 visitors that we need to be winning over to our side by showing them how we can engage ourselves in productive truth seeking on our threads, instead of dodging arguments and making bald assertions about how so-and-so doesn’t understand such-and-such and using intellectual fighting words like “absurd” and “pussyfooting.” You can count me out.

15

Would you say that a judge is attempting to fake reality when he has comments stricken from the court record?  Obviously not, because the purpose of the stenographer’s notes is *not* to create a precise historical record, but to produce a document that enables the jury to accomplish their task.

The judge doesn’t strike substantive arguments and there were many substantive arguments made by several posters on this thread.

Also, it is the judge who decides what is admissable, not the contending parties. In this case, the judge is the moderator. The ultimate judge is the person reading the thread and he should have all the evidence available including who made relevant arguments and who didn’t.

16

I would think that if one had a concern for their words being available in “perpetuity”, they wouldn’t post those words in a forum owned by another person.

My expectation is that when I post on here, that’s it. I have placed my words and thoughts in the domain of this forum (not to mention in the larger sense the whole of the internet), and there they shall stay for as long as the forum operator allows or desires them to remain. If they are error, then it’s up to me to correct or clarify at a later point.

Certainly it may behoove a forum operator to make clear in a user agreement exactly what expectation a person has over the duration and deletion of their statements. However, I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t post here what I don’t want to remain here.

VES

17

All of this talk about deleting posts, banning ideas, editing posts, etc., should be judged in the light of initiating force.

18
  1. You originally deleted the thread as per the request of thinkonaut but then changed your mind and reinstated the entire thread?

Yes.

  1. Is the current forum policy that posters have no say over having threads deleted and, in general, all of the postings will remain as part of the historical record of the forum? (Here I am excluding what I think you stated some time ago, that sometimes you delete threads because they are obvious trolls, or totally irrelevant, or some such criteria as that.)

Yes.

19

Well, I don’t mind leaving my “Circular Time” thread on the forum, but just to cover all bases, I reserve the right to have it (my posts) deleted in the future based on the previous non-clarity of the policy and based on the fact that David *did* remove it.

The new question is not whether I have the right to have it deleted in the first place (since it was), but whether David has the right to reinstate it.

What complicates matters is that we are talking about other people’s writings, too, and I don’t wish to claim any say over whether those posts are published. If people misunderstood this point, I apologize for my lack of communicating clearly. The other people’s posts can always be retained, whether or not my posts are there. They could be retained in some other form.

I just don’t believe that an “anything goes” forum is consonant with Objectivist principles. I realize that David does do some editing and monitoring, i.e., keeping out irrational people, but I still don’t think that’s enough. If I were giving a lecture, the opportunities for people to take the floor would be carefully controlled. If it weren’t, then people would get up and leave, which is what I saw was going to happen to my thread, so I got up and left first.

After all, the people who attend a lecture are there to listen mainly to the speaker, not the questioners. It should be up to the host and the speaker to decide if the questioners are making the desired contribution to the purpose of the lecture. Even if there is merit to what the questioner says, it still boils down to the issue of whether the lecturer thinks it’s pertinent and wants to continue with it.

Of course, there will be honest disagreements on the part of questioners who are not given as much attention as they ask for. There will always be honest disagreements of that nature. But the solution is not to let the questioners take over the floor, but to ask the questioners hold their own lecture.

This is tangential and not totally related to the issue at hand, but I am reminded of an article that Ayn Rand wrote in one of the Objectivist newsletters. Student rioters at Berkeley were demanding that the students and professors be able to take over and run the university, and AR disagreed. I agree with AR.

Students and professors should be able to run universities, i.e., hire and fire administrators, but only if they are the ones that started the university in the first place, such as what occurred when universities originated historically as formal organizations of foreign students in Italy, as I understand it.

No offense intended to anyone involved in this event. It appears as though everyone had good motives.

20

IMHO, the policy should state that posting on these forums is akin to giving a non-transferable, unlimited right to ObjectivismOnline to present the materials in the context in which they were posted.