Delete Irrelevant Posts

[Thinker]

I think we need a new feature for forum software applications.

This new feature would allow the authors of the thread to administer his subject content. The author would see the post, read it decide if it were relevant, off topic, or a complete waist of bits, the author could either leave it as submitted or delete it from the thread. It would virtually eliminate overnight useless comments and focus the discussion on the subject introduced.

Agent Provocateurs could be shown the door in no time at all. Really, why does any person in their right mind participate in a discussion that they appose without even comprehending the subject?

This feature would have the added benefit of deterring bogus posts because the person posting would know if he/she made irrelevant comments he/she would be put out!

This feature would also regulate the author because excessive use would detour others from contributing anything to that user.

Forum moderators would be freed from dealing with most if not all of the BS.

end

[jaybee]

Posted by Thinker (here)
Agent Provocateurs could be shown the door in no time at all. Really, why does any person in their right mind participate in a discussion that they appose without even comprehending the subject?

BUT...what if the Agent Provocateurs started lots of threads...and then deleted anything that didn't comply with their agenda? And only let their agent colleagues participate? How very convenient that would be!

This feature would have the added benefit of deterring bogus posts because the person posting would know if he/she made irrelevant comments he/she would be put out!

Blimey... I don't think you've thought this through Thinker... the above is a blue-print for a mini dictatorship.. LOL.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

I expect you would have deleted my above post.....wouldn't you?

ps...I'm PLAYING.....

[tone3jaguar]

Control issues?

I bet you wish you could delete that.

[HORIZONS]

Did you ever see that Twilight Zone episode where a child had absolute power to delete anyone and everything that did not agree with him? It wasn't long before everyone that was left in his world was in complete agreement with him. Not much of a world to experience was left.

[JoeNashville]

It's a great idea in principle. But jaybee makes a very good point. I've got to think the Agent Provocateurs would be spread to thin to cover every thread on the increasing board and threads in the on line universe. After all, how many are there? Oh wait, close to a million in DC alone. :-(

Well, you could just have two buttons like a lot of sites are doing now. Vote up or down on relevance. Everyone could vote and once the percentage reached a pre-determined number for non-relevance, say 75% the post would be deleted. I don't know enough to know if that is even possible, but it's a thought.

That would remove the outside nefarious influence, at least in theory.

[Beth]

I think we just need to leave the job to the mods and use our own discernment when reading threads.

[SteveX]

Posted by yaya551 (here)
I think we just need to leave the job to the mods and use our own discernment when reading threads.

I think that’s about right. One can't subjectively edit ones own thread. You'll end up with a bunch of yes men and as for a thumbs up / down system.... that’ll be dependant on the clique.

There is an ignor feature I believe.

[jaybee]

Posted by yaya551 (here)
I think we just need to leave the job to the mods and use our own discernment when reading threads.

Spot on..... thanks!

Even keeping this thread on the first page is a distraction from genuine issues... if you get my meaning... so I won't post on it anymore...

[Thinker]

If your paranoid fantasies were to come true, and someone was a little sh-t control freak would you have the ability to ignore them?

If the Agent Provocateur was popular with all his Provocateur buddies would you start your own thread and ignore him?

If someone only allowed “yes” replies could you find someone else to dialog with?

You appear to believe your most effective weapon for dealing with some one you disagree with is to blast them with your knowledge, it’s not. Your most effective weapon is to turn your back and walk away.

end

[Decibellistics]

This would be called censorship.

Unless the issue being censored is keeping up with the kardashians and real housewives of new york.......I want no part haha.

You can self censor things. The ability to do so is to either a not view it or b. view it and not allow an emotional reaction occur.....just a simple understanding of the pure ridiculousness of what has been witnessed.

People are constantly being fed **** and or feeding people ****.

The problem with censorship is that the argument turns into a fallacy due to slippery slope. Where do you draw the line.
Well, we can't say ****, because people are offended by ****, which means we are going to have to censor all fart jokes, and now toilet paper is illegal. Completely stupid and made up I know but it is just an example..Use your imaginations.

It's a tricky concept though that certainly requires a debate.
My best example would be a bleeding heart liberal who doesn't want the uglies of the world intruding into their lives. Is it acceptable to censor things that are considered "bad". What about freedom of speech (which to a certain extent is an illusion) but lets try not to get too complicated.
Would this lead to a reality where there is nothing but happy time flower power.....this would have to be a generational endeavor because we as people have seen some pretty fudged up stuff.
Basically it is indoctrination of the youth in a different way of indoctrinating them in the present.

Personally I don't mind when people say silly things that don't matter. I also am not a fan of hiding the uglies of the world from your children.

The question is are you guilt tripping a child with the ugly of the world or are you trying to show them a reality that shouldn't be allowed to continue.

For instance....how do you get a kid to not waste food........Show them a picture of a starving child in Africa and explain the situation to them. The tricky aspect to this one is are you making the child feel bad for wasted food. Don't do that lol. Educate them in a calm manner and explain to them what's up.
How do you teach a kid not to do heroin.....you tell them the scabs on their uncles legs was where his limb was basically rotting off due to overuse of heroin.
If you can teach a kid what causes ugliness, and the effect of it.....then they will have a modest understanding of how to counter the ugly. If they become extremely attached to wanting this change they might genuinely create a beautiful counter-movement to a situation.

The problem is people make people feel bad about things, instead of attempting to educate them in a way that might actually enlighten the person to change their behavior. If my dad didn't say he would kill me if I smoked cigarettes and instead said....hey my dad smoked and he died at 56 of a heart attack....I might not be a smoker.......It's like a mirror.
There is a behavior that you may or may not have witnessed in yourself, and then a mirror shows you what the problem is.....then the person realizes....wow I shouldn't do that because it is silly and absolutely unnecessary. Much easier said than done.

Sorry this may be considered irrelavent and off topic as well....but censorship is an interesting concept because you can get caught up in its spider web of possibility.

I personally think that people should say what they wanna say and if what they say is completely silly......move on. No harm no foul. As long as it isn't malicious and attempting to engage in a typing contest of hate say whatever the hell ya want.

Forum: an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest.
The problem is subjectivity influences interest differently.

Sorry this was really long and I don't know why.
Censor this **** lol.

[greybeard]

Its all perfectly managed as it is.
One mans meat another's poison.
If I start a thread I dont feel its mine, I dont own it.
If Im not in agreement I might comment, others opinions are as valid as mine.
Even though Im right I dont have to be or even prove it.
Its great to have the freedom to be wrong. What ever right or wrong is.
If I go over the score then I wouldent hold it against the moderator who points that out to me.
No one gets barred from the forum with out being reminded of the rules and then repeatedly re offending.
Regards Chris

[Thinker]

If a gardener cuts (deletes) every branch on every plant in the garden he won’t have much of a garden. If the gardener leaves every weed to grow and flourish the garden will be ruined also.

If you possess no self control I see why you are afraid of this suggestion.

end

[Decibellistics]

Agreed greybeard, well said. Muy bien

[Decibellistics]

Now that's a garden LOL It's even got it's own irrigation system....my god

[freespirit]

Posted by Thinker (here)
I think we need a new feature for forum software applications.

This new feature would allow the authors of the thread to administer his subject content. The author would see the post, read it decide if it were relevant, off topic, or a complete waist of bits, the author could either leave it as submitted or delete it from the thread. It would virtually eliminate overnight useless comments and focus the discussion on the subject introduced.

Agent Provocateurs could be shown the door in no time at all. Really, why does any person in their right mind participate in a discussion that they appose without even comprehending the subject?

This feature would have the added benefit of deterring bogus posts because the person posting would know if he/she made irrelevant comments he/she would be put out!

This feature would also regulate the author because excessive use would detour others from contributing anything to that user.

Forum moderators would be freed from dealing with most if not all of the BS.

end

Censorship.

[Thinker]

For the purpose of discussion let’s say my gardening analogy holds some merit.

I'm sorry you can't distinguish between a forest and a garden. A bit emotional, aren’t we?

Consider this half measure:

The ability of the author of the thread to flag posts as unbeneficial or off-topic. This flag would allow the reader to include or exclude posts considered by the author as unbeneficial or off-topic to the discussion. See the thread with or with out the weeds.

I comprehend censorship but not in this context. Censorship would be accurate if the author could stop decanters from starting their own threads. This ability is currently available to the moderators. Censorship applies when a media outlet only reports one side of a story and the other side is intentionally left out. Like the world we live in now. When each side has a media outlet (forum) of the same size how can censorship be achieved? It can’t. Censorship can only be achieved for as long as it takes to copy and paste the post from one thread to another.

end

[Decibellistics]

Your analogy does hold merit. Twas a joke silly goose. So emo

Your second shorter explanation makes much more sense. To give a person an option.

Just for the sake of Devil's Advocate.

Isn't half the battle of researching esoteric topics having to dig through a bunch of bull**** until you find that gold nugget of truth.

Though I digress, I say if that's something you're super interested in, learn how to do the programming and coding for an operation of the such and give the coding to the moderators.

[Thinker]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Its all perfectly managed as it is.
One mans meat another's poison.
If I start a thread I dont feel its mine, I dont own it.
If Im not in agreement I might comment, others opinions are as valid as mine.
Even though Im right I dont have to be or even prove it.
Its great to have the freedom to be wrong. What ever right or wrong is.
If I go over the score then I wouldent hold it against the moderator who points that out to me.
No one gets barred from the forum with out being reminded of the rules and then repeatedly re offending.
Regards Chris

Why are you talking about "barred from the forum"?

[greybeard]

Posted by Thinker (here)
Why are you talking about "barred from the forum"?

Barred
Its in the context of the safeguards that are built into the rules of this forum as mentioned in my post.
So my point is that there is no need for additional safe guards such as you have sugested.
Not every one has English as a first language so there is some misunderstanding in threads, sometimes people do go off at a tangent and are not strictly speaking on topic but their post is relevant to them and some times to others.
Some times a thread develops within a thread for a few posts -- no harm done--- it always gets back on track sooner or later.
All im saying is that the system works reasonably well, no need to complicate it.
Chris

[morguana]

Posted by Decibellistics (here)





Now that's a garden LOL It's even got it's own irrigation system....my god

totally agree with this post decibellistics,
sorry thinker but think your idea may need to go back to the drawing board and be tweeked somewhat
however i would say that i see the smooth workings of a forum everyones responcability and would like to say that self moderation and mutral respect being the building blocks on any level of connected adult comunication.
also forgiveness and understanding is paramount.
so rather than threads being moderated by the op, i suggest that people think before they post and see that there is someone on the other side of the computor.
m