Deleting threads on Loomio
(edited to be more positive from my previous attempt)
sometimes people want to delete threads on loomio for various reasons. but that can leave some people who posted in them feeling hurt and also lose valuable information and debate which would then have to be repeated.
what guidelines can we develop to make sure these conflicting needs are managed?
i think the preferred response to a desire to delete depends on the reason and the content.
posts only the writer commented on - ok to delete
posts the writer got a few short comments on that don't hold much value as standalone posts - ok to delete
posts with a lengthy debate between the writer and other people directly challenging the original post - ok to delete
posts with lengthy debate but with some posts with useful information - suggest to repost the valid information or give the writer of that information chance to do so before deletion
posts that start discussions between other members that don't involve the original author - not ok to delete , best to get one of the other people in the thread to adopt it instead if the original writer wish's to remove themself, they can then remove all there comments too
what do others think? i will update this list as people suggest things below
Amir Khadr Wed 19 Jun 2019 9:27AM
@adriangodwin I also agree on the locking over deletion.
I would love to see actually a platform that allows a more fine-tuned control over the content we create, share, and engage with.
From the user experience angle you could like/dislike a paragraph, but not the whole post so that the reaction is more representative and the feedback fine tuned. It would not only be nice to the eyes and brains, but also nudge people into a better organisation and expression of their positions, leading to more nuanced and deep conversation.
On the security side we would have the freedom to apply locking/hiding/deleting of our content at paragraph or post level without impacting anyonelse's own content (if you decide to delete your contribution everybody else read that you have deleted it).
On the technical side I see a graph database, and maybe blockchain.
Adrian Godwin Wed 19 Jun 2019 9:38AM
Sounds great, but I'm not sure it' s a necessity. Maybe you need to go and build it, and then see if they come. Unlikely to be worth pausing this discussion until we have the perfect platform.
Personally, I'm happy to have a platform that can host discussions without requiring me to sign up to a load of onerous preconditions intended to allow me to be tracked for profit.
I quite like the slashdot model of pushing a poster below a display threshold (but able to be overridden if you're interested in what they said) if they have a poor reputation. I don't like the stackoverflow model of locking every thread that's gone a little offtopic. I LIKE offtopics.
I don't like inflammatory arguments.
Amir Khadr Wed 19 Jun 2019 9:44AM
Yes @adriangodwin, I'm with you on that, no need to wait for the perfect platform. Definitely was dreaming out loud my ideal one as that allows me to know what I would need to tweak in the one I have.
What do you mean by onerous preconditions?
I'll check out slashdot and I agree with you about StackOverflow.
In principle, I'm sceptical about the sustainability of any system/paradigm that relies on moderators and rules and can't self-regulate.
Adrian Godwin Wed 19 Jun 2019 9:56AM
Onerous preconditions : allowing FB access to your private messages, tracking your contacts, etc.
Well, yeah. I'd like a utopian anarchism too. But I haven't seen any groups bigger than Dunbar's Number that have been able to achieve it. And plenty smaller that failed :(
Amir Khadr Wed 19 Jun 2019 11:18AM
Onerous preconditions: gotcha.
utopian anarchism: I'm not into utopias nor anarchism. I feel a new paradigm can emerge and be successful (ie. Reinventing Organisations).
Re Dunbar's Number limitation (I had to google it): instead of thinking of one monolithic group of max 150 people, I think of many overlapping groups/function/collaborations.
Also, you don't need a group of 300 hundred people creating stable relationships, you can also have two groups of 150 if enough people of group A have stable relationships with enough people of group B and vice-versa.
I'm sure I've read some scientific research on this, but I can't think of which keyword to use now.
Adrian Godwin Wed 19 Jun 2019 11:29AM
Try degrees of separation : the idea that any two people can be connected by as little as 6 social links.
Unfortunately this contradicts the idea that you can have a society with overlapping Dunbar's Number groups : you wouldn't need many such groups before you were linked to the whole world, which is provably unusable.
To keep the group on-track and exclude damaging trolls (which I'll defined here as people who sow dissent for its own sake and their amusement, rather than the common definition of 'people who disagree with me') you do need to have some sort of relationship with everybody - friend-of-a-friend has to turn into friend.
When London Hackspace was breaking up through lack of community, I happened to visit a building in Dalston for the bsetup for an after-after-burn party. I noticed how well the community held together in a constructive rather than critical way and asked a old-timer how they managed that.
He said 'always say goodbye when you leave'.
Amir Khadr Wed 19 Jun 2019 1:17PM
@adriangodwin thanks for engaging and the interesting conversation.
I am strongly against relying on theories and models that explain very well the present and past for predicting the future, its potential, and its challenges. I feel we can learn a lot from what is mapped and what went wrong, but that's about it.
The future is for us to make.
Adrian Godwin Wed 19 Jun 2019 5:36PM
That's gone a bit abstract. But if I understand you correctly : I don't say religion and politics have no value, or that they can't contribute useful debate. But they're characterised by fixed positions and heated argument. If allowed to intrude into a conversation that's intended to be constructive, they tend to have poor results. They are articles for thoughtful discussion and learning, not for shouting at one another or imposing on people, however strongly one might believe in them.
Adrian Godwin Wed 19 Jun 2019 8:48AM
As for facebook .. by no means is everyone there. They're leaving in droves leaving only the trolls and the elderly, and with good reason. Nuke it from orbit. If that's where you find your friends, consider redefining who you talk to.
Adrian Godwin · Wed 19 Jun 2019 9:12AM
As I said - I prefer locked threads to removal. But I have no idea what actually provoked the removal. And I have sufficient trust in the moderation to start with the assumption that it was justified.
'Assume good faith' is my default position. If that's unjustified it tends to come out in the end, usually with a lot less damage than that caused by trolling. And it's only fun for us all, nobody dies. As I said before, if somebody doesn't like the setup, fork and see if the majority follow. They will, if dissatisfaction is general. But never appeal with an argument of the silent majority. It carries zero weight without evidence.