Unregistered ???

[b.c.]

I would be in favor of deleting his pics. Vote?

If a member is "unregistered" either by choice or ban, their pics should probably go away with them, unless someone has another view.

I'm in complete agreement. On another (but similar) topic, not only should "unregistered" memberships (and pictures) be removed but threads that have not had responses by a set period of time should also be removed. Why preserve everything ever posted ad infinitum?

 

[novice_btm]

I'm in complete agreement. On another (but similar) topic, not only should "unregistered" memberships (and pictures) be removed but threads that have not had responses by a set period of time should also be removed. Why preserve everything ever posted ad infinitum?

Um, I think that'd be a mistake. It serves quite well as reference. Why re-invent the wheel, or in this case re-answer questions that had very informative threads?

 

[b.c.]

Um, I think that'd be a mistake. It serves quite well as reference. Why re-invent the wheel, or in this case re-answer questions that had very informative threads?

Reference for what (or whom)? Granted, there's valuable info in much of it, but there are 227 pages of threads in the New Member's Introductions forum alone, dating back to 1969. When was the last time you referenced that stuff?

 

[novice_btm]

Reference for what (or whom)? Granted, there's valuable info in much of it, but there are 227 pages of threads in the New Member's Introductions forum alone, dating back to 1969. When was the last time you referenced that stuff?

Well, for me, I'm a frequent user of "Search" and I never know what I'm going to be looking for, but I frequently pull up old threads, where a question was previously answered.

 

[madame_zora]

Sorry, deleting threads stinks of censorship. I don't see that ever happening.

I guess my concern for the pics was primarily about members who had been banned. They might not be able to let us know what they want done with the pics, whether they should stay posted or not. If someone just moved on, they could always come back to delete them if they so desired.

Matthew, Novice- thank you two so much for volunteering, my pitchfork is glowing with desire. :tongue:

 

[novice_btm]

Sorry, deleting threads stinks of censorship. I don't see that ever happening.

YAY! No deletions.

Matthew, Novice- thank you two so much for volunteering, my pitchfork is glowing with desire. :tongue:

Huh? No, um, but... WAIT!!! *I* wasn't volunteering, I was pushing one of the masses forward for you. :biggrin1: OK, OK, for YOU Zora, if I must... :wink:

 

[b.c.]

Sorry, deleting threads stinks of censorship. I don't see that ever happening.

Yeah, that and throwing out old newspapers, methinks.

I guess I just have a particular perspective on how much of this stuff should remain forever in cyberspace...

 

[Lex]

I don't think threads should delete. I do think they should automatically lock after a certain amount of time with no replies--say 2 weeks?

 

[dong20]

I don't think threads should delete. I do think they should automatically lock after a certain amount of time with no replies--say 2 weeks?

The principle seems OK though I'd suggest a month which would allow folk to take a reasonable vacation and yet not have lost the ability to contribute on return. Or if not could the thread be re-opened on 'reasonable' request, say by three members?

It may add 'some' admin work for the Mods though...just a suggestion.

 

[novice_btm]

I guess I just have a particular perspective on how much of this stuff should remain forever in cyberspace...

Ah, that makes sense. It's the same for me. Part of my job is electronic archivist. We keep absolutely everything. :wink:

 

[novice_btm]

I don't think threads should delete. I do think they should automatically lock after a certain amount of time with no replies--say 2 weeks?

Well, with this issue, my only point is this, and I've raised it in several threads in the past, but I'm forgetting which ones they were. The thought was something along the lines of "make up your minds, people."

That is, people are often scolded for not using the "search" function first, before creating threads, but then if (s)he does do a search, finds what they need, and revive an older thread, then people get miffed at that too. So? Which is it? Multiple threads on one topic, or one thread that may be old and tired, but gets revived anew from time to time?

 

[jeff black]

The principle seems OK though I'd suggest a month which would allow folk to take a reasonable vacation and yet not have lost the ability to contribute on return. Or if not could the thread be re-opened on 'reasonable' request, say by three members?

It may add 'some' admin work for the Mods though...just a suggestion.

I would be happy with an hour or two, just to modify the posts. Sometimes they are much bigger than I anticipate, and by the time I get done editiing, 5 minutes is up:biggrin1:

 

[novice_btm]

I would be happy with an hour or two, just to modify the posts. Sometimes they are much bigger than I anticipate, and by the time I get done editiing, 5 minutes is up:biggrin1:

I think they were refering to locking the ENTIRE THREAD, not just your particular posting from being edited.

BTW, is that 5 minute limit new??? It's much too short.

 

[jeff black]

I think they were refering to locking the ENTIRE THREAD, not just your particular posting from being edited.

BTW, is that 5 minute limit new??? It's much too short.

No, I know they are, I just realized the other day about the new limit.. it is short, and felt that it was a good spot to stick it in.

 

[D_alex8]

BTW, is that 5 minute limit new??? It's much too short.

Yes it is, and yes it is.

Three or four times already I've wanted to clean up elements of a longer post for clarity, only to discover I had been timed out while editing.

While I can understand the change in terms of not wanting someone to delete all their old posts if they up & leave LPSG... I think 15 mins. or 30 mins. would be far more realistic.

As for locking old threads: I think this would be troublesome with regard to the celebrity endowments forum, since you never know when a new photo or tangent is going to develop, and imho it's much better to be able to refer back, rather than have multiple threads on the same person. The latter point also refers to people who come to the board and discover an old thread that relates to their situation directly, or on which they have a new angle. Locking threads seems counter-productive to me, meaning that people always have to start a new thread from a "basic" position, rather than being able to elucidate points more clearly on a thread that has already developed onto a higher level of discussion. I would make an exception with the not-so-late Mrs. Donna Goldstein, however.

 

[Lex]

Thanks for the feedback regarding locking older threads.

Novice--I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Newer posters should look at older threads to see what has been said before. I think it is fine to ressurect an older thread if you are adding a new perspective or picture, in the case of celebrity endowments. Resurrecting an older thread to talk to a poster who last said something 6 months ago seems a bit odd to me. MHO.

Rob E added the time limit to editing so that the Webster case (where a member goes back to delete all their posts on a topic in order to erase their words retroactively) does not happen. I will ask him is it can be longer (15 minutes maybe).

I will place some of these points in the Moderator Forum so that he can see them more clearly and respond if he feels the need.

 

[b.c.]

Ah, that makes sense. It's the same for me. Part of my job is electronic archivist. We keep absolutely everything. :wink:

Why does that not surprise me? Were you not the guy who complained that guys with words such as huge or numbers like 9 in their user id be required to post where the live? (Whatever for? Planning on a visit are we?)

My point of view is this: When I post thoughts, opinions, or personal experiences in this (or in other) forums, I do it for the benefit of those in the "here and now" in terms of cyberspace time. It's not for trolls, lurkers, stalkers, etc. to pour over everything I've ever said long after the fact.

I think having all that stuff in cyberspace has the potential to undermine certain rights to privacy, and (without dredging up a lot of old stuff that has happened here in the past) we know of examples where this has occurred.

In light of recent changes to the ability to edit posts, I know I have become much more discriminating as to what i'll post or respond to.

 

[dong20]

In light of recent changes to the ability to edit posts, I know I have become much more discriminating as to what i'll post or respond to.

I have a question, other than the loss of typo and grammar correction why should an editing lockout change what one says or responds to? It's not an opinion or judgement lockout so if you say something you later 'regret' in the heat of an argument you can quote and clarify later. The risk comes when what you said rather than meant to say is quoted and used against you..is that what you're alluding to? That's irritating but it's also part of the risk of a public forum where not everyone plays fair.

However, going back and removing or changing the substance of what you said long after the event and I'm not accusing is underhand and undermines the integrity of the board as whole. IN general I'm in favour of the lockout but would like it extended to say an hour (typo's, grammar etc).

Perhaps when a member leaves they could ask that their original posts are removed along with any images? I think that's a cop out and won't remove quoted texts. To me this is part of why we use screen names not real ones in an at least token attempt at providing 'anonymity'.