"Close account" button. Success or Failure?

anncoates

I always found those valedictory threads to be cringeworthy in the extreme, to be honest.

Posy

anncoates wrote: »

I always found those valedictory threads to be cringeworthy in the extreme, to be honest.

So do I- and like Insect Overlord said, the person in question is normally back under a new name within a month or two!
People just can't stay away. :cool:

My name is URL

Czarcasm wrote: »

Boards.ie offers it's long term users no protection against new users having just joined the site, going through their ten year posting history to nit pick at them

I've just seen a post by you, made this morning, in which you did this exact thing. You quoted another user's 3 month old post from an unrelated thread and used it as a stick to beat him with.

How can you have such a problem with people looking through and cherry picking old posts you've made, when you appear to be more than happy to do it yourself? =/

Czarcasm

My name is URL wrote: »

I've just seen a post by you, made this morning, in which you did this exact thing. You quoted another user's 3 month old post from an unrelated thread and used it as a stick to beat him with.

How can you have such a problem with people looking through and cherry picking old posts you've made, when you appear to be more than happy to do it yourself? =/

First off, I think if you read my post from this morning, you'll see I didn't have to go trawling through the users post history to remember a post they made three months ago. I remembered it because it stuck with me.

Secondly, there's a bit of a difference between three months, and ten years, especially if you were a frequent poster that enjoyed contributing in many forums, but now has to try and restrict themselves to AH because it's far too easy to build up an online profile from somebody's posts and make a discussion more like a personal witch hunt just to make your point. THAT'S cherry picking. What I did wasn't cherry picking.

Thirdly, the reason that post by that poster, was relevant to the discussion, is because it was a fairly innocuous question asked in the OP, and suddenly that poster is in like a shot telling the OP they should talk to somebody about their depression on the basis of a single line in a single post. I mean, what the actual fcuk?

Which is why, the content of a post they made three months ago, on a topic related to depression, where they claimed people they knew nothing about, would spread misinformation about depression, was incredibly relevant, and showed that in fact the only person quick to jump to assumptions and spread misinformation, was themselves.

That thread has now taken a turn it may not have done had the poster not misconstrued the OP and claimed assertions based on a single line in a single post. It's misguided at best, and downright dangerous at worst. It's armchair psychiatry and it's giving direct medical advice, which is against the terms and conditions of Boards.ie.


You're trying to draw a comparison where effectively there is none by misconstruing both my post in this thread, and my post in that thread.

My name is URL

Czarcasm wrote: »

First off, I think if you read my post from this morning, you'll see I didn't have to go trawling through the users post history to remember a post they made three months ago. I remembered it because it stuck with me.

I presume you still had to do some searching in order to directly quote the post.

Secondly, there's a bit of a difference between three months, and ten years.

Why's that? You're either not in favor of people using your old posts as arguing points in ongoing threads, or you don't have an issue with it. Time scales shouldn't really be a factor, imo.

Thirdly, the reason that post by that poster, was relevant to the discussion, is because it was a fairly innocuous question asked in the OP, and suddenly that poster is in like a shot telling the OP they should talk to somebody about their depression on the basis of a single line in a single post. I mean, what the actual fcuk?

Which is why, the content of a post they made three months ago, on a topic related to depression, where they claimed people they knew nothing about, would spread misinformation about depression, was incredibly relevant, and showed that in fact the only person quick to jump to assumptions and spread misinformation, was themselves.

That thread has now taken a turn it may not have done had the poster not misconstrued the OP and claimed assertions based on a single line in a single post. It's misguided at best, and downright dangerous at worst. It's armchair psychiatry and it's giving direct medical advice, which is against the terms and conditions of Boards.ie.

That's all well and fine, and I won't comment on it or on the post you were replying to in the other thread as it has nothing to do with the point here, which is quoting old posts in order to bolster your own argument against another member.

However, if it's against the rules then did you report the post?

You're trying to draw a comparison where effectively there is none by misconstruing both my post in this thread, and my post in that thread.

I'm not trying to draw any comparison tbh. It exists already. You clearly stated earlier on that you have an issue with people being able to compile a profile on individual posters, and use the information gleaned from that against them. Why does it matter if it's done from memory or from searching for posts? You can't have it every which way.. it's either okay to use a members old posts in order to discredit them in new threads, or it isn't.

Czarcasm

My name is URL wrote: »

I presume you still had to do some searching in order to directly quote the post.

Have you ever tried to use the search function on touch? It's absolutely dire, and that's putting it nicely. I went through my subbed threads instead as I remembered the title of the thread, then scrolled down the thread.

What I'm talking about is a user specifically clicking on the "Find more posts by so and so" on a user's profile, then gleaning info from their posts across various forums, and posting those posts in a discussion. Say for example taking something they posted in LGBT, with something they posted in a regional forum, something they posted in Reality TV, something they posted in Parenting... you get the idea, and introducing it into a discussion out of context. THAT'S not only against Boards.ie rules to introduce something posted in another forum into a discussion in one forum, AH for example.

And I know you ask further down why not report the post, but what use is that when the misconstrued information is already out there? And that's not even taking into account the time it might take for Moderators to action the post.

Why's that? You're either not in favor of people using your old posts as arguing points in ongoing threads, or you don't have an issue with it. Time scales shouldn't really be a factor, imo.

Because a person's perspective can change in ten years, thereby changing their opinion. Now because that posters post was in AH, I didn't introduce anything from other forums they frequent. I had no interest in going through their post history.

In the last week alone I've had people refer to my posts in other forums in AH to make assertions about my character, and I don't have a problem with it, when it's done in a civil fashion and not with the intention of being a dick.

That's all well and fine, and I won't comment on it or on the post you were replying to in the other thread as it has nothing to do with the point here, which is quoting old posts in order to bolster your own argument against another member.

I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote in my reply to that poster. I wasn't arguing with them or beating them over the head with their own post from as far back as even a year ago. It was only three months ago. The intention was as I said to point out that the poster shouldn't be making such outrageous assumptions, especially when it comes to an issue such as depression. That was the key tying factor between the two posts, made only three months apart, in the same forum.

However, if it's against the rules then did you report the post?

Answered above. I also try to use the report post function sparingly so that I'm not perceived as spamming the reported posts forum unnecessarily. I also addressed the poster's post in a civil fashion. I don't have any issue with the poster, merely their posts, well, those two posts anyway.

I'm not trying to draw any comparison tbh. It exists already. You clearly stated earlier on that you have an issue with people being able to compile a profile on individual posters, and use the information gleaned from that against them. Why does it matter if it's done from memory or from searching for posts? You can't have it every which way.. it's either okay to use a members old posts in order to discredit them in new threads, or it isn't.

Quite simply, it's not ok to be a dick. That's what it comes down to. It's not as black and white as you're trying to make out, so how about a compromise? (Boards.ie are unlikely to implement this, but how and ever, we'll throw it out there) -


Disable searching of a user's post history each year, as in hide it from public view (they can do this with PI, PI and private forums already), and make their full post history only available to them.

It could even be set as a subscriber option, and I guarantee you subscriber numbers would increase exponentially while closed accounts would decrease, perhaps not at the same rate, but it'd be an interesting metric to graph all the same.

Dav

That idea is absolutely abhorrent to me - you don't get to selectively edit history, and you certainly don't get to charge people money to cover up their past.

If you don't want someone to read your opinions in 10 years time, don't write them in public.

darraghdoyle

Dav wrote: »

That idea is absolutely abhorrent to me - you don't get to selectively edit history, and you certainly don't get to charge people money to cover up their past.

I hope you can stick with that dude. Great article on how some sites are now charging to remove content about people here.

It's an edgecase and very specific, certainly, but I think we'll see more of it, especially when some sales people have budgets to reach or see revenue opportunities. You know yourself.

I'm glad Boards.ie isn't considering it though.

Dav wrote: »

If you don't want someone to read your opinions in 10 years time, don't write them in public.

That needs to be taught in schools.

Czarcasm

Dav wrote: »

That idea is absolutely abhorrent to me - you don't get to selectively edit history, and you certainly don't get to charge people money to cover up their past.

Dav I know you're probably far more well clued in on this than I am, but nobody is actually putting forward the idea of selectively editing history (in fact it is the post trawlers who are selectively editing history by quoting people's old posts out of context). So with that in mind, I just want to introduce this to the discussion, a person's right to be forgotten on the internet, which is why I suppose the close account feature and cookie acceptance were introduced here in the first place-

Right to be forgotten (Europe Union)
Concept

Beyond the United States, the European Union also expressed its concern about the personal information management. On Jan 25, 2012, Viviane Reding, the vice chairperson of the European Commission, suggested General Data Protection Regulation which is a more strict form than the Directive 95/46/EC is. This is a right to ask service providers to delete the personal information which were collected by data brokers under a users’ consent in order to strengthen the user information protection. The right to be forgotten also includes the notion of not to be searched, and extinctive prescription of information.

The regulation recommends service providers to request consent from their users when they deal with sensitive personal information. When failing to comply with the regulation, service providers would be fined up to 1,300,000 USD or 2% of their sales figures.

Reding articulated that change of regulations related to the past Internet environment is inevitable due to the changes of digital circumstances such as technological development and globalization. She also stated that the current credibility of Internet companies is low because of weak personal information management. The proposed law would include the following:

• autonomic control of personal information,
• applicable regulation not only of companies based in the EU area, but also for companies dealing with personal information of EU citizens,
• request users’ apparent consent before collecting personal information,
• a unitary regulation applied to the entire EU,
• mandatory reporting when information leakage occurs, and
• transferrable personal information when users change their Internet service provider.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track_Policy


Now, the bolding emphasis being my own, is what I'm talking about, that you give community members the option of increased security and more control over their online identity.

I really can't see why you'd baulk at the idea when if I want to do something as simple as change my avatar to one of my own choosing, I have to pay at least €5 to do so. If I don't want any of the other subscriber benefits like hanging out in the private members who paid for the privilege subscriber lounge, well that's just tough titty, you'll take what you're given. There isn't much else €5 will buy you nowadays, but even for that much, I think I'm ok with the other 799 forums boards has to offer thanks.

Now, so we'll say I DO make use of the other 799 forums, and I'm in a heated discussion with joe soap for example, joe gets his knickers in a twist, closes his account, re-regs as jane soap, searches through my post history and sees that "Ohhh, that'll be juicy!" (lets be honest Dav people spin stuff all the time and take it out of context), so now you have this one post wonder who comes out of nowhere and has selectively edited your history to paint you in a completely contrary light to your opinion as it is today.

Have you ever tried explaining yourself to an angry bastard with an axe to grind? They have no interest in listening, their only interest is in showing you up in a discussion and embarrassing you into keeping quiet. So how do you protect yourself from that?

Well, two ways- stop contributing to discussions altogether, just lurk (it's a pain in the ass when you'd love to engage in a discussion, but you know you can't), or else just close your account every so often so people even though they know you're a re-registered user, they cannot use your previous post history against you (again, it's a pain in the ass to keep re-regging, but again, just as Boards.ie is now aware of how much it needs to protect itself, so too are some of it's users).

These are currently the only available options I have open to me to protect my indentity on Boards. Only two weeks ago I was talking to my neighbour and he said "Were you so and so on Boards.ie?", I said yes, and he went on to say that he knew because of something I said and the way I said it (I knew well how he knew because under that account I had previously in one of the regional forums given my opinion of the place where I live, but hey, I let him have his sherlock moment (holmes, sherlock holmes, not the other clown!)).

See I have no problem standing over anything I say online, and as I've often thought "It'd be great if we could all use our actual names instead of usernames on boards, it'd cut down on half the dickish behaviour as people would have to stand behind their opinions!", but what I DO have a problem with, is some wet willy that searches through my post history to misconstrue and twist something I may have said or posted in another forum ten years earlier or whatever the case may be.

That's selectively editing history and I should have a right online not to have strangers intrude on my past and misrepresent my opinion.

If you don't want someone to read your opinions in 10 years time, don't write them in public.

By all means they can read my drivel, but selectively quoting it out of context and all the rest of it? I think I'll just stick to closing my account as a means to protect myself from johnny come lately's vulture search abilities.

Think about it- how many young angry bastards are signing up to boards every day, mouthing off at the regulars, etc (never understood why the posts in the prison forum were public anyway but that's a whole other thread), but basically they too will in ten years time be wrinkly old middle aged farts whose minds have been broadened and whose opinions have been moderated, and they will want to forget their misinformed opinion and not have the new generation of young angry bastard bring up stuff they said ten years ago and twist it out of context.

Nobody's a freaking fortune teller Dav, and could YOU have predicted the way social media and technology and the legalities surrounding them would go? Now try and picture what it'll be like another ten years from now...

You simply can't, so to wag the finger and say to somebody "don't do this, don't do that", to accomodate people being dicks and offer no option for a user to protect themselves, I'd say without a doubt the close account feature is one of the best features boards has ever implemented, but even then they only did it because they were forced to. So as regards that aspect at least- the implementation of the close account feature and the lack of protection of it's members offered by boards is a failure on their part.

That's only in MY opinion though, and while in defence of Boards I might say "No system is perfect!", I have to remind myself that it doesn't mean you can't strive to improve upon it where you see the obvious flaws!

Insect Overlord

One man's "striving to improve the site" is another's "wrapping the poor delicate little flowers in cotton wool". Protect yourself on-line first. Don't expect some authority to be your big brother for you.

28064212

Czarcasm wrote: »

what I DO have a problem with, is some wet willy that searches through my post history to misconstrue and twist something I may have said or posted in another forum ten years earlier or whatever the case may be.

Or 5 years earlier? Or a year earlier? 11 months? 2 days? Earlier in the same thread? The age of the post has no bearing on whether a troll will use it to misquote and twist.

Czarcasm

Insect Overlord wrote: »

One man's "striving to improve the site" is another's "wrapping the poor delicate little flowers in cotton wool". Protect yourself on-line first. Don't expect some authority to be your big brother for you.

Absolutely IO, and for sure I don't expect Boards will do too much about it, but they could as I and darragh suggested give subscribers the option of extra security (come on, how many years has Boards been saying "We'll look at what we offer subscribers", and done nothing), and yet here it is, a new revenue stream while at the same time giving subscribers another option and if an ordinary poster wants to avail of protecting themselves- it's a win/win all round surely?

There's no delicate flowers, there's no big brother authority, it's more like buying a guard dog to deter people from crossing your lawn to get a closer look in your windows!

Now obviously like I said, the posts are not deleted, they are merely hidden from the view of ordinary posters, so Moderator level up to Administrator and Boards.ie Technical Staff would still have access to post history, but at least you'd be protected from "seagull posters"?

28064212 wrote: »

Or 5 years earlier? Or a year earlier? 11 months? 2 days? Earlier in the same thread? The age of the post has no bearing on whether a troll will use it to misquote and twist.

Well yes there's that too, but I mean, there HAS to be a cutoff point at some stage, where stuff gets archived and you're allowed move on.

I mean, where that point is, is something Boards would have to decide, because hell I'm doing well if I can remember what I was saying at the start of this post, whereas ask my wife and she's got a memory like a frickin' elephant, to this day reminds me of stupid shít I said as far back as 16 years ago when we first met and her favorite phrase is "As you said...", because she knows I can't remember! :pac:

Cody Pomeray

Insect Overlord wrote: »

One man's "striving to improve the site" is another's "wrapping the poor delicate little flowers in cotton wool". Protect yourself on-line first. Don't expect some authority to be your big brother for you.

Is it possible to have an informed debate without resorting to emotive sneering? This reminds me of a schoolyard criticism of weasels and crybabies.

The law is the law and nobody is above the law. If an individual has genuine concerns about the use of their data, I would suggest they should consider making contact with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, and I think any implication that doing so is tugging the elbow of your big brother is a little juvenile in itself.

The owner of this site has said, more than once, that users own their own words. They are users' property. If a user must take responsibility for his words, the user should also be able to take them with him or her, or control public access to them, after a user no longer wishes to continue with the site. One seems like a logical extension of the other; future developments in this regard should prove interesting.

P. Breathnach

Insect Overlord wrote: »

One man's "striving to improve the site" is another's "wrapping the poor delicate little flowers in cotton wool". Protect yourself on-line first. Don't expect some authority to be your big brother for you.

I don't buy into the robust model that this post represents. There are people with insufficient understanding of how sites like this one work - in particular, some posters do not know that information they give in their member profile is available to the rest of us; there are people whose judgement is temporarily impaired (not always due to alcohol or other psychoactive substances); there are people who compromise the privacy of individuals other than themselves; there are people who regret having disclosed things here.

I think it appropriate in some cases cotton wool be supplied.

In a couple of cases I have PM'd users to suggest that they edit posts to protect their own privacy; in other cases, I have PM'd mods with suggestions about protecting users from their mistaken judgement.

That said, I think it would be bad if a poster's entire history were excised unless there were special circumstances.

K-9

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Is it possible to have an informed debate without resorting to emotive sneering? This reminds me of a schoolyard criticism of weasels and crybabies.

The law is the law and nobody is above the law. If an individual has genuine concerns about the use of their data, I would suggest they should consider making contact with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, and I think any implication that doing so is tugging the elbow of your big brother is a little juvenile in itself.

The owner of this site has said, more than once, that users own their own words. They are users' property. If a user must take responsibility for his words, the user should also be able to take them with him or her, or control public access to them, after a user no longer wishes to continue with the site. One seems like a logical extension of the other; future developments in this regard should prove interesting.

We aren't facebook or a service provider, really, how would you suggest a user takes their words with them, or selectively hides them when they close their account. Its a discussion site, if people can just delete or hide posts in a discussion it kind of makes the whole point of the site redundant.

Czarcasm

K-9 wrote: »

We aren't facebook or a service provider, really, how would you suggest a user takes their words with them, or selectively hides them when they close their account. Its a discussion site, if people can just delete or hide posts in a discussion it kind of makes the whole point of the site redundant.

Boards.ie does provide a service though, and this is where it runs into trouble in defining itself- is it a social media site, or is it a discussion site? I've always thought of Boards as a discussion site, even as much as it's been trying lately to look like Facebook.

I cannot stand Facebook tbh, hate having to go anywhere near it (I work in IT so it's a "necessary evil" at times, no doubt it's a useful communications tool when used properly, but 90% of the time, it's not!), and Boards is undeniably trying to step into that space.

Boards has designed itself lately around new users who as Dav put it; their introduction to the Internet was through Facebook. So what's going to happen with Boards too eventually is that 90% of the time, it's going to become useless as a communications tool.

So, what I'm saying is that Boards needs to get ahead of the technological curve and be proactive in adapting the site BEFORE they again get slapped on the wrists so to speak by the DPC, who are all about protecting a person's online information and couldn't care less about the inconvenience to Boards as a discussion site.


Isn't there a "Boards.ie" automated account? What if there were a "Closed Account" account that would replace a users username when they closed their account? Again I don't know the specifics of implementation, but I'm just throwing the ideas out there. Again, the Moderator level up would be able to see the original account users username to determine if they were a troublesome re-reg, etc.

Now, having been thinking about this and what would be a reasonable length of time before a post became "unsearchable"; a poster is allowed two days grace to edit or delete their post. So two days I would suggest would be the same length of time a post should remain searchable in their post history.

It doesn't mean a poster can't go back a week in a thread discussion to find a post a poster made, but it just means they can't use their post history to do it. Either they remember when and where that poster said something, or they have to let it go.

Too much crap nowadays on this site where people think they're in a debate and "Someone is wrong on the Internet, I must win my argument and I'll find any way to do it" mentality takes over and they transform into abusive dicks that have no interest in discussion and exchange of ideas in a civil fashion.

Lets not have Boards turn into Facebook. Boards is NOT "the Internet", it's a site ON the Internet that still thank fcuk retains some standards!

Cody Pomeray

K-9 wrote: »

We aren't facebook or a service provider, really, how would you suggest a user takes their words with them, or selectively hides them when they close their account. Its a discussion site, if people can just delete or hide posts in a discussion it kind of makes the whole point of the site redundant.

You're defeating your own argument.
Facebook is not a USB key, it is a social networking site, designed to facilitate shared experiences. Interaction is at its core. The principle applying to discussion boards is the exact same.

It would not be sufficient for facebook to raise as a defence that deleting accounts "makes the whole point of the site redundant." With all due respect, the law in not concerned with the promotion of a business model. Its primary concern is going to be data protection and exercising individual rights to control user data.

K-9

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're defeating your own argument.
Facebook is not a USB key, it is a social networking site, designed to facilitate shared experiences. Interaction is at its core. The principle applying to discussion boards is the exact same.

It would not be sufficient for facebook to raise as a defence that deleting accounts "makes the whole point of the site redundant." With all due respect, the law in not concerned with the promotion of a business model. Its primary concern is going to be data protection and exercising individual rights to control user data.

You are posting under a pseudonym which gives you privacy, facebook doesn't, you're treating them as the same when they aren't.

As other mods said, we'll delete personally identifiable information if we can, but if somebody has build up a profile over 6/7,000 posts, I don't see how boards have a responsibility to let posters delete or hide those posts.

28064212

Czarcasm wrote: »

Isn't there a "Boards.ie" automated account? What if there were a "Closed Account" account that would replace a users username when they closed their account?

Why? Again, you're trying to solve a problem that the Boards owners and operators don't believe is a problem. In fact, it's something that would actively destroy the site's history (try reading a thread where half the posters have the same username)

Czarcasm wrote: »

It doesn't mean a poster can't go back a week in a thread discussion to find a post a poster made, but it just means they can't use their post history to do it. Either they remember when and where that poster said something, or they have to let it go.

What about the person who remembers where and when it was said, selectively quotes and/or distorts it, and is a dick about it? You seem to think the history being available is the problem, when the problem is actually people being dicks

Czarcasm

28064212 wrote: »

Why? Again, you're trying to solve a problem that the Boards owners and operators don't believe is a problem. In fact, it's something that would actively destroy the site's history (try reading a thread where half the posters have the same username)


What about the person who remembers where and when it was said, selectively quotes and/or distorts it, and is a dick about it? You seem to think the history being available is the problem, when the problem is actually people being dicks

I don't have all the answers, I'm just throwing this stuff out there and trying to come up with suggestions for feedback. Right now the site is leeching users and people have closed accounts left, right and centre all this week. Hell there was one thread in AH only an hour old and by the time I got round to reading it the OP had closed their account. They were a member of the site for three years. That's only one example. There are many, many more I can think of, and there has to be some way of implementing a better system to stem the trickle of closed user accounts before you have seagull posters making one post then closing their account, re-reg, sock puppet, close account, same again, and by the time the Moderators have caught up with them, they've destroyed the discussion in a number of threads, and that's a mess that nobody wants to waste time cleaning up.

Insect Overlord

Czarcasm wrote: »

...a better system to stem the trickle of closed user accounts before you have seagull posters making one post then closing their account, re-reg, sock puppet, close account, same again, and by the time the Moderators have caught up with them, they've destroyed the discussion in a number of threads, and that's a mess that nobody wants to waste time cleaning up.

That's been happening for years. The only difference now is that it says "Closed Account" under their name instead of "Banned".

Cody Pomeray

K-9 wrote: »

You are posting under a pseudonym which gives you privacy, facebook doesn't, you're treating them as the same when they aren't.

Why would that be material to anything?

And furthermore, there are plenty of provisions on facebook whereby a user's identity or account may be concealed; it wouldn't be unusual for someone with the surname Lyons to use L-s, to use a random example. There is also a visibility option. Again, I'm not sure this is even relevant. The point was the interactive nature that is common both to FB and bulletin boards.

As other mods said, we'll delete personally identifiable information if we can, but if somebody has build up a profile over 6/7,000 posts, I don't see how boards have a responsibility to let posters delete or hide those posts.

As the law stands, I'm not sure that boards has any such responsibility and it puzzles me why you would even delete anything but the most incriminating of posts, but that's perfectly nice.

That said, the law doesn't care much for nicety and anyone can see the trend that the law is taking in relation to online content, as indicated by the EU Commission's Data Protection Regulation; this right to be forgotten seems to have been coming down the track for a very long time now.

K-9

Czarcasm wrote: »

I don't have all the answers, I'm just throwing this stuff out there and trying to come up with suggestions for feedback. Right now the site is leeching users and people have closed accounts left, right and centre all this week. Hell there was one thread in AH only an hour old and by the time I got round to reading it the OP had closed their account. They were a member of the site for three years. That's only one example. There are many, many more I can think of, and there has to be some way of implementing a better system to stem the trickle of closed user accounts before you have seagull posters making one post then closing their account, re-reg, sock puppet, close account, same again, and by the time the Moderators have caught up with them, they've destroyed the discussion in a number of threads, and that's a mess that nobody wants to waste time cleaning up.

I don't think the recent examples are about privacy concerns, I'd say being pissed off at stricter moderation and picking up cards/bans would play a big part (not a whole lot we can do with that when feedback seems to want stricter moderation, you want that too Czarcasm, can't see how those 2 diametric concerns can be accommodated), some don't like replies they get and go off on a strop.

So, privacy concerns aside which I'm not sure is that much of a boards problem, more an individual poster problem, a lot of this using the close button is because it is there, and once a rash decision is made, that is that.

Cody Pomeray

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think the recent examples are about privacy concerns, I'd say being pissed off at stricter moderation and picking up cards/bans would play a big part (not a whole lot we can do with that when feedback seems to want stricter moderation, you want that too Czarcasm, can't see how those 2 diametric concerns can be accommodated), some don't like replies they get and go off on a strop.

Personal motivations for making requests are of limited relevance to anyone. A potential supervisor is not concerned about whether X is citing his privacy or publication concerns to cause a headache for the website owner Y, they're not a counselling agency. Their remit is examining data protection concerns and leaving individuals to their personal issues.

Czarcasm

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think the recent examples are about privacy concerns, I'd say being pissed off at stricter moderation and picking up cards/bans would play a big part (not a whole lot we can do with that when feedback seems to want stricter moderation, you want that too Czarcasm, can't see how those 2 diametric concerns can be accommodated), some don't like replies they get and go off on a strop.

So, privacy concerns aside which I'm not sure is that much of a boards problem, more an individual poster problem, a lot of this using the close button is because it is there, and once a rash decision is made, that is that.

Well yeah, stricter moderation is what I personally would like, but I'm trying to think outside just what I want here, I mean, I could've cited a better privacy concerns example (I think if you check one of my recently reported posts you'll see it), but I didn't want to say it here tbh, because it's too easy identify posters from it, and I don't want to be nailing this down to individual posters or even individual forums (there are public forums that are somewhat even more uncivil that AH where it's hard to know what's "robust discussion" and what's just outright being a dick, but the tone of the forum allows for it).

So there are plenty of reasons, and even as IO says above, troublesome posters they have Banned instead of Closed Account under their username But, I'm trying to see a way that Boards could in one way encourage people not to be so swift in closing their account, and also monetize the idea of increased security and privacy.

I mean, it's not beyond the bounds of technical possibility- LGBT, PI, RI, none of these forums are searchable (though that doesn't stop posters referencing posts in them in other forums), so it's an issue too with the calibre of posters I suppose.

There's a whole lot of factors that need to be teased out I imagine, this thread needs more input, I can only comment from my own limited perspective, but I wish it weren't taken up as me being critical of Boards in a negative way- I love this site and I love the people on it, but I guess I'm just passionate about making the experience better for everybody, because despite how I may come across sometimes, it's actually only because I give a shìt, and I want to see Boards around in another ten years time!

28064212

Czarcasm wrote: »

I don't have all the answers, I'm just throwing this stuff out there and trying to come up with suggestions for feedback. Right now the site is leeching users and people have closed accounts left, right and centre all this week. Hell there was one thread in AH only an hour old and by the time I got round to reading it the OP had closed their account. They were a member of the site for three years. That's only one example.

That has always been true. The only reason you're aware of it is that the Closed Account tag has been added, instead of people just not posting any more

Czarcasm wrote: »

There are many, many more I can think of, and there has to be some way of implementing a better system to stem the trickle of closed user accounts before you have seagull posters making one post then closing their account, re-reg, sock puppet, close account, same again, and by the time the Moderators have caught up with them, they've destroyed the discussion in a number of threads, and that's a mess that nobody wants to waste time cleaning up.

None of what you've suggested so far has any relevance to the above. That already happens, and was already happening long before the Close Account option was available.

K-9

I don't know, what's the point of having a good discussion about something, when the other party can just delete or hide their posts, just like that, in Tommy Cooper style.

Anybody searching a topic from 6 months ago will just see loads of posts from me, basically talking to myself. I do that too much normally in "real life", rather than see post after post of me replying to myself, quoting some imaginary poster that may or may not have existed!

Czarcasm

K-9 wrote: »

I don't know, what's the point of having a good discussion about something, when the other party can just delete or hide their posts, just like that, in Tommy Cooper style.

Anybody searching a topic from 6 months ago will just see loads of posts from me, basically talking to myself. I do that too much normally in "real life", rather than see post after post of me replying to myself, quoting some imaginary poster that may or may not have existed!

I figured I'd hit brick wall territory with this one K-9 tbh after 28064212's post above, but I'll try and explain the proposed mechanics of this again, because I'm missing something somewhere in trying to explain the idea-


Ok, so your posts IN a thread aren't actually hidden, it's just your history of those posts before the two day edit or delete limit, are hidden.

Now, the way I see it working is that you can still use the search function, and say for example my posts will show up IN a discussion, BUT, you can't click on my username and do a "find all posts by" and see all the posts I've made across a number of forums (well, the proposed idea means that YOU could, because you're a Moderator, but an ordinary poster can't!).

It would make it just that little bit more work for a person if they had the inclination to be a dick and do a post search on a users posts and then introduce that info into a discussion.

We had a prime example of it in another thread earlier on in Feedback. I don't think I'm allowed refer to specific threads as that might be seen to be picking on posters.

LizT

To be honest Czarcasm, I think you're making an issue out of this when there's no need. If someone is desperate enough to trawl through someone's posts to try to discredit them or score points, it only reflects badly on that person. If someone wants to do it to "be a dick" as you say, that's exactly what they'll appear as.

We're all responsible for what we post, no one forces us to post. I've said some things on this account I just absolutely cringe at and/or disagree with completely now, but I can just laugh it off mostly as being naive or ill informed.

I've no doubt trying to introduce a feature like you suggested would need an awful lot of development and in reality, wouldn't really benefit anyone. I think the guys in site development have enough on their plate without trying to introduce a feature like that.

P. Breathnach

LizT wrote: »

... If someone is desperate enough to trawl through someone's posts to try to discredit them or score points, it only reflects badly on that person....

I'm not endorsing Czarcasm's proposal, but if you say that bad posting practice reflects badly on the poster and treat that as the end of the matter, then I would regard that as a failure in moderating.

I see posts that I consider cross the line and I report them. If a mod says that the post did indeed cross the line, but no action is needed because it can be readily seen that the poster is acting like a dick, then I am dissatisfied. No matter how egregious a post is, there are participants who do not see it as reflecting badly on the poster.