Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
K5 Monthly Update, November 2003

By rusty in Site News
Wed Dec 03, 2003 at 11:56:43 PM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

Pay no attention to that timestamp above.

To be perfectly honest, I have little to say about K5 for November. Besides the fiction contest, which I'm sure you're all aware of already, nothing very interesting happened here behind the scenes.

So instead I'm going to use this bully pulpit to call for a vote on an issue which has come up with increasing frequency and which I do not know the right answer to. The short question is, should people be given the tools to delete everything they ever posted here if and when they decide to leave, and if so, how? Read on for more background, and please vote. I will hold to what the vote shows two weeks from today.

Update [2003-12-4 0:39:38 by rusty]: See update at the bottom of the story for an additonal point.


So the question is basically this. A few people have, in the past and for a variety of reasons, requested that I remove all of their postings from the site. On the one hand, I don't like to do this because I feel that it leaves ugly gaps in the conversations and history of the site, and in some cases greatly reduces the value of the archives for future readers. It also erases some history which did, whether the user likes it or not, happen.

On the other hand, I don't like the idea that every stupid thing everyone ever said should be held forever for posterity, and I'm pretty uncomfortable being the guy who ultimately decides that that's how it shall be.

In the past, I've dealt with this on a case-by-case basis. People have typically had fine reasons for wanting their stuff removed, and so far it hasn't come up very often so I haven't generally been a hardass about it. I usually ask them if they're sure, then if they're really really sure, then I wait a few days and ask again, and if so I'll delete their stuff. I have refused to delete stuff when I've felt like it was someone essentially pitching a hissy fit, and I have also erased stuff that the poster didn't want erased, for generally obvious reasons.

But I don't like being stuck making a personal decision every time. We need a policy. Not to mention, I could save myself a lot of trouble if we're going to allow such erasure by just coding up a button so that users could do it themselves.

So I want the community's vote on this. I've tried to think of as many options as I can for how to handle the situation, but if you can think of others please suggest them. There's a re-vote vote, to call for a new vote with different options if you think discussion pointed out major ones that I didn't think of. Failing that, here's what I see as the choices, with some explanatory reasoning behind them. Please read the options carefully before voting, since many of them are only slightly different.

  1. No deletion. People post knowing full well they're posting in public, and the K5 legal policy explicitly says you grant K5 the right to display your submissions for as long as we choose to.
  2. Full user-choice deletion. People should be able to control their words, and if this means removing them, so be it. There should be a button on a user's account that wipes out everything they posted, like it was never there. This button will also automatically close an account and remove all personal information from the database.
  3. Full user-choice deletion with placeholders. Like option 2, except instead of deleting everything like it never existed and removing all stories, it will replace all submitted text with generic "There used to be a comment here" text in order to keep the comment or story in place, as a placeholder. This may partly resolve the confusing effects of deleting comment in the middle of discussions, and also would at least retain the comments on stories, though not the stories themselves.
  4. Full comment and diary deletion, but no story removal rights, without placeholders. Like option 2 (i.e. full deletion) but diaries and comments only. Stories, since they were voted up to the site by members, have in some way become common property, and the user doesn't have full rights to control them anymore.
  5. Comment and diary deletion, but no story removal rights, with placeholders. Like option 3 -- diaries and comments only -- but with placeholders.
  6. Deletion of diaries only. You can remove all of your own diaries at any time. Comments outside your own diaries stay. I don't see any good reason to do a "placeholders" option for this.
  7. Deletion of comments only, without placeholders. I'm not sure this even makes sense -- why allow removal of comments but not diaries? But hey.
  8. Deletion of comments only with placeholders. See 7 above, but with placeholder comments inserted.
  9. New vote. If discussion convinces you the option you want is not on this list, please vote for a new vote.
  10. Abstain. You have no opinion and only want to see the scores.
I should add that this is not necessarily the final resolution this issue will ever have, but given the site as it exists, these are the options that would make sense to implement in the short term. I also think that deleting your stuff should probably close the account automatically, since I don't think it should be something people feel like they can do on a whim. I'm not going to put that part up for vote, so all the "allow deletion" options should be assumed to include closing the account, unless there's a great hue and cry and lots of good reasons why they shouldn't. Or, possibly, unless "Diaries only" is the winner, in which case it might not be necessary to force someone to close their account.

So that's the question before you. I urge you not to vote until there's been some discussion, as you might find yourself changing your mind. Thanks, folks.

Update [2003-12-4 0:39:38 by rusty]: I forgot to mention it, but I was also planning to add an option for users to close their account, remove personal info, and (optionally) automatically rename the account to something generic and unrelated to them. This would leave all content alone, but simply change the account name associated with it to something meaningless. I don't think this is a site policy issue, and it's orthogonal to the question at hand here, but FYI I do plan to add that regardless of (and in addition to) what we decide here. I mention it because it may affect how you vote. Then again, it may not.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Should we allow content deletion, and if so, in what way? [See story body for more on the options]
o No deletion 43%
o Full user-choice deletion 3%
o Full user-choice deletion with placeholders 4%
o Comment and diary deletion, but not stories, without placeholders 1%
o Comment and diary deletion, but not stories, with placeholders 15%
o Deletion of diaries only 21%
o Deletion of comments only, without placeholders 0%
o Deletion of comments only with placeholders 0%
o I vote to have a new vote with different options, based on discussion below 6%
o Abstain 2%

Votes: 1600
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o legal policy
o Also by rusty


Display: Sort:
K5 Monthly Update, November 2003 | 414 comments (414 topical, editorial, 3 hidden)
Perhaps you should start (2.22 / 18) (#1)
by King of Prussia on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:06:11 AM EST

with a few unrequested deletions?

Join me on irc.slashnet.org #kuro5hin.org - the official Kuro5hin IRC channel

Very clever (1.08 / 12) (#96)
by templurkeracct on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 04:37:09 AM EST

asshole.
I was the original drduck back before mod-bombing was cool.
[ Parent ]
I agree that a policy is necessary (2.87 / 16) (#2)
by aphasia on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:06:55 AM EST

because it's too much to ask you to make a personal judgment for every request, which is just gonna open you up to too many accusations of favoritism. A stated policy, communicated very clearly ahead of time, insulates you and other admins from some of this friction.

I think making deletion too easy or convenient (i.e. a 'delete everything I ever posted' button) is dangerous, not because i think legitimate users will abuse it, but because it's another tool trolls can use to crapflood with really horrific things, then delete what they've flooded after the damage is done, but before whatever they post can be countered. What I imagine happening is posted diaries from dupe accounts that post users' personal information, or post accusations against someone, in a public place in the forum, then being able to delete what they've posted before it can be refuted or otherwise addressed. Maybe this is overly pessimistic of me. In theory, I like the idea of direct user control; in practice, on this site, I think it's unwise.

"You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave

I concur (2.57 / 7) (#6)
by llimllib on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:10:48 AM EST

I know that I'm not an admin, so I don't have to deal with it, but I think the decision should be made on a case by case basis. This site is not so large that this is unreasonable (IMHO, I could be wrong) and this is a pretty serious request which alters the site heavily.

Peace.
[ Parent ]
I definitely think you are wrong (2.87 / 8) (#10)
by rusty on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:15:28 AM EST

Being in the (currently) slippers of the guy who has to decide, I can say for sure that it's not a decision I want. I have never once felt like I was making the right decision, and usually I feel like there is no right decision. I'm personally totally conflicted about it, in that I can see and fully support arguments for just about every one of those options. So, basically, I don't want this potato. Please take it from me. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Generally there is no right decision (2.87 / 8) (#16)
by aphasia on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:20:57 AM EST

FWIW, I think you've handled these requests as well as can be expected thus far.

I suspect a show/hide flag for diary entries, controlled by the diary author or a site admin, would be enough to stop most of the deletion requests you get.

Deletion of all of the comments posted by an account is unreasonable, IMHO, even when it's by user request. Deletion of comments one at a time may be workable without too much abuse (it works in places like livejournal, which is much bigger and populated by much more immature people than k5, hard as that is to believe).

"You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
[ Parent ]

well, then (2.87 / 8) (#36)
by llimllib on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:45:26 AM EST

Since you don't want the potato (but who could turn down potatoes? mashed, scalloped, au gratin, ahhhh) could you possibly hand it off to one of your capos?

Like aph said, there should be definitely guidelines as to what are grounds for removal of diaries. That way, you would be the Supreme Court: merely deciding what did fall under the rules and what didn't, which would take a lot of the burden off of you.

I think that it would be a really bad idea to let people delete their own comments, and a bad one to let them delete their own diaries. That would make being here like playing poker with no money on the line; there's nothing to back up your bluffs. Although this is already possible if you're careful, it would become significantly easier with big buttons you could hit to delete your words.

Peace.
[ Parent ]

Yeah. (2.87 / 8) (#47)
by aphrael on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:53:54 AM EST

I think there are times, especially with diaries, where it's a legitimate request and should be honored. I'm actually fine with the current system - the requests aren't that frequent - but as an institutional matter I think policies are a good thing.

[ Parent ]
Also, (3.00 / 10) (#9)
by aphasia on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:12:06 AM EST

I have a hard time envisioning circumstances in which all stories for a user need to be deleted. Offensive stories get voted down anyway, and it's the rare story that includes information that can be damaging to the author. If there is a legal issue with one story, I can see deleting the text of the one story and leaving a placeholder. I see no reasonable situation arising that makes wholesale deletion of all of a user's stories necessary. Stories, to me, are more 'common property' once posted than something like a diary is.

What about an option to 'lock' a diary at the entry level (i.e. you can hide individual entries) and make an entry unavailable, accompanied by the option to unlock the entry at another time? And I think most non-scoop diary sites nowadays allow diary editing after the fact.

"You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
[ Parent ]

FWIW (2.42 / 7) (#12)
by rusty on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:16:58 AM EST

My vote goes to "diaries and comments, but not stories, with placeholders.

As I said elsewhere, ideas that are more complicated than these, like individual diary control stuff, are not being ruled out forever, but are outside the scope of this decision. This does not preclude other improvements in the future.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

I'd buy into that. (n/t) (1.60 / 5) (#18)
by aphasia on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:23:41 AM EST


"You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
[ Parent ]

FWIW (2.20 / 5) (#44)
by aphrael on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:52:18 AM EST

My vote went to diaries only, with placeholders.

[ Parent ]
Yes (2.81 / 11) (#24)
by Politburo on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:30:22 AM EST

Any deletion option should require some sort of e-mail confirmation type thing for security, imo.

[ Parent ]
Hey rusty... (2.68 / 16) (#3)
by JahToasted on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:09:01 AM EST

On the subject of deleting stuff, what do you think of the idea of allowing users control over who posts in their own diary, ie. allowing them to delete comments and/or ban users?

So if someone were to crapflood my diary I could just delete them instead of having to write another diary complaining about the Troll Problem, thus annoying everyone.
______
"I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" -- Jim Morrison

That's a bigger project (2.90 / 11) (#8)
by rusty on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:12:00 AM EST

And I am considering it. This is basically a right-now kind of policy. I can have any one of these options up and working with about two hours of coding, at most. They're basically just variants of tools I already have, with different permission-checking.

Larger changes, like deleting stuff in your diaries, and all of the other diary-control-ish stuff people have suggested, are pretty much all on the table, but not relevant to this vote right now.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

It's incredible (2.14 / 7) (#111)
by The Terrorists on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 08:32:36 AM EST

Years ago this stuff was brought up and you opposed it.. now you support it, and I oppose it for some reason. It might save k5, though. Hmm...

Watch your mouth, pigfucker. -- Rusty Foster
[ Parent ]

Save k5? (1.83 / 6) (#127)
by wiredog on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:45:19 AM EST

Too late, methinks.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
agreed (none / 0) (#372)
by Wah on Tue Dec 09, 2003 at 05:53:48 PM EST

not that it matters.
--
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
..or simply
[ Parent ]
Things change (2.60 / 5) (#158)
by rusty on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:19:56 AM EST

Circumstances change and evolve. Being opposed to such things was an initial hypothesis. I'm coming to think that hypothesis was wrong, and perhaps we need a new hypothesis. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Get your data (2.00 / 4) (#169)
by The Terrorists on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:36:05 AM EST

Okay. Your experiment's done... before you change anything stop and write up your results and get quantitative data about it! You may need it later! Hell, weblogs are part of my research and I will want it later, with now as a turning point in the site.

Watch your mouth, pigfucker. -- Rusty Foster
[ Parent ]

WTF? (none / 3) (#213)
by Skwirl on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:44:13 PM EST

Just save us all the trouble and admit that you've sold out all your morals because you want to be popular. The basic ethics of free speech in open forums haven't changed in the past few years as far as I've noticed. If you've decided to make K5 an unopen forum, please alert me now so I can move along like everyone else.

--
"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
[ Parent ]
Er (none / 2) (#232)
by rusty on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:19:38 PM EST

I have no idea what you're talking about.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Yuo = teh lusar (none / 1) (#268)
by Skwirl on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 01:58:41 PM EST

This thread was about you changing your mind with regards to the ability for someone to delete comments in "their own diary." The most cogent reason to avoid giving users that kind of control would be the fact that the egalitarian diary section (anything goes, remember?) would devolve in to bitter tyrannies, cliques and serfdoms where outsiders are shunned and prima donnas reign with the iron fists of popularity and censorship. I thought you wanted K5 to be a truly open forum for the exchange of ideas and not just another diaryland.

All of your current waffling appears to rest around the question of free speech versus the trolling "problem." Once you began sacrificing Kuro5hin as an open forum, the trollers had already won. I, for one, welcome our new troll overlords. Instead of viewing it as a trolling problem, you should have been viewing it as a signal/noise problem and given the userbase more power to filter their own content as they see it as opposed to falling for the old arms race of censorship versus gaming.

--
"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
[ Parent ]

Leaping to conclusions (none / 1) (#274)
by rusty on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 05:18:22 PM EST

I think you're assuming a lot from one line that I was thinking about ways we could do some things differently. First, I'm not considering any changes to the story sections. Second, I'm still not interested in re-creating diaryland. And third, I'm disappointed that at the drop of a hat you're perfectly willing to assume I'd trash four years of work and reverse everything I've ever said about what K5 ought to be.

Don't assume, and just chill out and see what happens, ok? It might be nothing at all.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Sorry... (none / 1) (#325)
by Skwirl on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 01:21:58 PM EST

I think I'm just having flashbacks to the dial-up BBS collapse of the mid-90s. Don't mind me.

--
"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
[ Parent ]
How do I vote (2.50 / 8) (#7)
by gibichung on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:11:50 AM EST

If I'd prefer "all or nothing"? This would mean that you would honor or deny all requests.

Honestly, I'm against the idea of erasing non-abusive comments, diaries, or stories at all, but since it has already done on a case by case basis, I'd have to vote for full user control if you can't restore the ones that you've already deleted. The fact that the reasoning behind the decisions to delete or preserve individual users has been questionable in the past doesn't inspire much faith in ultimately leaving the decision your hands.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt

First decide (2.75 / 4) (#14)
by rusty on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:19:09 AM EST

Whether you want "all" or "nothing". Then vote either 2 or 1 respectively.

You should assume I can't restore things I've already deleted. That's not 100% true, but it's mostly true, and I won't restore any that I technically could.

I have no faith in leaving the decision in my hands either. Hence the policy vote. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

basically, here's the deal (1.12 / 32) (#11)
by suicidal ideation on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:15:51 AM EST

People are always going to bitch and moan no matter what. Be it about the account deletion shit or whatever - they'll never be satisfied.

The only way to shut them the fuck up is to KILL THEM. That's right, Mr. Foster. Chop them up and eat their flesh. It's pretty easy to do... I mean, if you're worried about getting sick or anything don't worry.. the chances of that are negligible.

Anyway, just thought I'd toss in my two one hundredths of one dollar. Bye!

"Repetitive guitar growing increasingly louder followed by pause." -- Trent Reznor
If there are placeholders, (2.28 / 7) (#13)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:17:51 AM EST

will there still be the information for which user's comment this placeholder stands for, ie. would it show that it is a placeholder for a comment made by "mami" or would it just be a placeholder for a comment without indicating who had made the comment?

Just a generic placeholder (2.50 / 6) (#15)
by rusty on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:20:09 AM EST

All personal linkage would be removed. It'd probably be reassigned to the "anonymous" account.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Thanks, I support option 5 wholeheartedly (nt) (none / 2) (#22)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:28:21 AM EST



[ Parent ]
IMHO, (2.80 / 5) (#23)
by metalfan on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:29:50 AM EST

The placeholder should say in no uncertain terms that the diary/comment/whatever was deleted by the original poster.

It would also be nice if the user was able to enter a (very short) reason for why he/she deleted it that will be added to the placeholder.

I'm not sure if the benefits of a reason-for-deletion field would outweigh the potential for abuse, though.  I also don't know how much extra code it would require.

[ Parent ]

Limited deletions (2.45 / 11) (#17)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:22:38 AM EST

If you accidently give away your address you should be able to delete it.  But if people want a ton of comments deleted, fuck'em.

I'd say any archived comment should generally stay.  And the user must give you a link a justification for every comment you want deleted.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

I'm not sure I see the point (none / 2) (#179)
by anon 17753 on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:03:28 PM EST

How do you accidentally give away your address?

I'm very curious to know.

[ Parent ]

Like this: (none / 0) (#381)
by dublet on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 10:23:29 AM EST

Oh wait.. You almost got me there.

Badger. Badger. ←
[ Parent ]
Policies generally suck, but... (2.54 / 11) (#19)
by causticmtl on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:27:24 AM EST

I agree that you probably do not have time to go through every lame-assed request to get this or that deleted, so a policy is definitely called for.

I voted for no deletion.

The only exception I would make to this is if the person requesting deletion can show that it would be detrimental to their lives or well-being if certain comments/stories/diaries were left intact. I'm sure you didn't put K5 up to harm anyone, so if someone can illustrate to you how what they have stated on K5 can actually cause them harm, I feel that the offending piece should be deleted.

Otherwise, no exception.

Problem: (2.75 / 4) (#26)
by aphasia on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:33:29 AM EST

When you say 'no deletions with this caveat: "...if the person requesting deletion can show that it would be detrimental to their lives or well-being if certain comments/stories/diaries were left intact," you basically end up with the situation you have today. In the diary deletions I'm aware of, your caveat is exactly the reason for the deletion request.

"You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
[ Parent ]

There is one occasion that I remember... (3.00 / 6) (#35)
by causticmtl on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:44:31 AM EST

... where someone requested that everything that they had contibuted to K5 be deleted and that person was webwench. Her reason was quite valid. She stated that her ex-husband was going to go through her K5 diaries to find incriminating diary entries to use against her in a custody case.

Rusty made the right decision. He deleted them and I was happy he did so.

Do you feel Rusty was wrong to do this?

[ Parent ]
corrections (none / 3) (#42)
by aphasia on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:51:23 AM EST

there was no custody case, and the user who said (s)he was going to go through back diaries to gather information was just some poster whose relationship with or knowledge of webwench outside of k5 was unknown. It wouldn't be fair of me to answer your last question.

Another instance was that of singular, whose diaries had the potential to incriminate a third party who was involved in divorce proceedings.

But I'm a new user account and hence know nothing :)

"You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
[ Parent ]

/me watches your nose grow [nt] (2.00 / 4) (#48)
by infinitera on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:54:24 AM EST



[ Parent ]
*cough* (none / 1) (#107)
by ti dave on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 07:32:10 AM EST

We don't believe you.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
My gosh, you are horrifyingly bright, aren't you? (none / 2) (#135)
by aphasia on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:11:41 AM EST


"You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
[ Parent ]

Peek-a-Boo! (none / 0) (#241)
by ti dave on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 04:19:04 AM EST

I can see you.
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
I suppose I am... (none / 1) (#303)
by ti dave on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 05:28:43 AM EST

about as bright as some peach-eating bitch out of Georgia.

Except that I don't really like peaches.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Identity confirmed. (none / 0) (#334)
by ti dave on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 04:44:51 PM EST

*chomp*
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
I think it's (3.00 / 5) (#40)
by aphrael on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:50:37 AM EST

I think it's a case of "General policy is no deletion but we'll make an exception if it's a really good life-threatening reason" or some such. It's *always* important to have wiggle room; if someone can prove to me that they'll be killed tomorrow unless something is taken down ...

[ Parent ]
Agreed [nt] (none / 1) (#46)
by causticmtl on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:53:25 AM EST



[ Parent ]
It wasn't life-threatening in the cases of (2.85 / 7) (#200)
by la princesa on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 05:28:46 PM EST

Jin Wicked, JCB, and fluffy grue.  Nor with webwench, really.  Of them all, JCB didn't mention it beforehand, (the sole proper male of the lot, interestingly), but up to this point, the whole deletion thing has honestly had the air of bratty girls bitching to rusty and him deleting their stuff.  It's reeked of the backroom and special privilege, regardless of what he says; it's how the whole thing looks to many others on the site.  There have probably been quite a few people who asked for deletion and got it without making a public fuss over it, but those loud girls (yes I'm counting the fluffster as a lass for the purposes of this rant) definitely made k5 look like one of those sites where getting to take back dumb things you said was the sole province of those friendly with the admin(s).  

All of which is to say that deleting comments and diaries and articles with placeholders is probably the best choice, and one hopes rusty will permit that one.  I don't think any of it should be wholesale nor should it all close the account right off.  I am a die-hard fan of letting people do such thing x number of times before invoking a final penalty or reward of some sort.  

___
<qpt> Disprove people? <qpt> What happens when you disprove them? Do they disappear in a flash of logic?
[ Parent ]

FYI (none / 0) (#252)
by rusty on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 10:31:31 AM EST

The people you name are pretty much the people who have asked for their stuff to be deleted. I think jjayson is the first one I've said no to, and I was as friendly with him as with any of the others. It's not like random strangers are always emailing me to ask for deletion and I ignore them cause they're not buddies. I assume that it probably wouldn't even occur to most people to email me for favors.

Also, I don't remember any deletions which weren't immediately noticed. The high-profile ones aren't hiding a mass of people you haven't noticed. They're all there is.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

that's pretty lazy, heck, maybe even pathetic (none / 0) (#374)
by Wah on Tue Dec 09, 2003 at 07:31:05 PM EST

I mean really.  At some point you have to step out of the system and act with the full functionality of a human.  This seems to be one of those cases.  If there have been 5 in 4 years, it sounds like it's quite doable by a thinking person with enough spare time.

Maybe it's time to hire someone to admin the site and make tough decisions?  You don't want to, and so there is this silly rigamarole to solve a problem that 1) isn't solvable by simple coded statements and 2) doesn't come up very often.

I was as friendly with him as with any of the others.

Wow, so with the others you made sure to post personal information after they explicitly didn't (including meta-information about the posting of such a request).  And all to make yourself not to seem like an ass?

Really poor form, IMHO.  Incredibly...

I would have personally kept that conversation private, since I thought it was just between you and I, but since you (courageously, I think) posted it for the purposes of full disclosure I'm sure you'd certainly want it to be an accurate record of the conversation that we actually had. So here you go, my log with the missing pieces filled in and boldfaced for handy scanning.
Did closing those bold tags feel that good?

One of the rarely-mentioned problems of leadership is that once you step up, and do a good job, people expect it of you.  In football my coaches always called this 'fucking up'.  "Roy, you just fucked up, because now I know you can do something right."  You fucked up a few years ago, in the good way.

Now, unfortunately, you seem poised on doing it the bad one.  Oh, it's not so much a sin of action, as it is one of inaction.  Of NOT standing up and taking resposibility, of NOT assuming leadership.  And it's so much worse now, from this perspective.

I guess this is what happens when the benevolent dictator gets old and senile, or perhaps distracted by a far-off war.

Who knows?  

Sorry, this should have been a private email.  

-From the Trenches

BTW, the policy is simple.  

No Deletions.  Admins have root. [end of stated policy]

You want deletions?

Take it to the judge (that'd be you, or whoever you hire).  

A.K.A. What you had until one of you capo's pissed on a useful member of the community.
--
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
..or simply
[ Parent ]

And they called him a Man of Action (none / 0) (#375)
by rusty on Tue Dec 09, 2003 at 10:39:43 PM EST

At some point you have to step out of the system and act with the full functionality of a human.  This seems to be one of those cases.  If there have been 5 in 4 years, it sounds like it's quite doable by a thinking person with enough spare time.

And judging by the voting, it looks like that's the way it's going to be. It's not that I felt like it was too much time or effort, but that I wasn't sure what the right decision was. In those cases, I generally take it you guys and see what the consensus is. It's worked in the past, and I think it worked here too.

Oh, it's not so much a sin of action, as it is one of inaction.  Of NOT standing up and taking resposibility, of NOT assuming leadership.

I've been doing it the same way for four years. It was right for me to ask the community what to do in the past, but now it isn't? No, that's not it. I know you don't like what I did with the IRC log, but the fact remains that 1) I exercised no special powers or privileges doing it, and 2) you see what you do when someone pisses on you with "evidence" they edited to make themself look good and you look bad. I don't apologize for that, nor should I.

A.K.A. What you had until one of you capo's pissed on a useful member of the community.

I don't know what you mean by that. But as far as the policy goes, it looks like you interpreted the voting pretty well. I'm not sure why you're so angry about it, besides the episode of my exposing jjayson as the fraud that he is. Maybe that's all there is. Maybe you're just angry. Or perhaps you're distracted by a far-off war.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

they certainly might (none / 0) (#378)
by Wah on Wed Dec 10, 2003 at 06:10:25 PM EST

It was right for me to ask the community what to do in the past, but now it isn't? No, that's not it.

This issue isn't about the community, but about the !community.  Those that become so disgusted by what is has become they no longer wish to be associated with it.  Maybe that's my major problem with k5 (yea, I know you think it's fine.  We disagree, hence the .sig): the general lack of noticable forward progess for the site, while at the same time fairly obvious, IMHO, decisions get rehashed to death.  All because you don't want to make those hard decisions.

Yes, the slow, sure, slow, 'are you sure?', waiting, slow, etc. approach is great and all, but really frustrating from the user level.

It is especially frustratng since the drag on the system is non-trivial, and without a consistent forward movement, the place stagnates.  It's there now, and rehashing simple decisions does little to move things forward.

I know you don't like what I did with the IRC log, but the fact remains that 1) I exercised no special powers or privileges doing it, and 2) you see what you do when someone pisses on you with "evidence" they edited to make themself look good and you look bad. I don't apologize for that, nor should I.

And my point is that pissing matches look bad regardless.  It's the person that relatiates who gets caught.  And if you think posting that made you look better, you are sadly mistaken.  

If I didn't want my words associated with your site anymore, I really wouldn't want much argument.  Much less a flippant 'well your reasons suck and I'm not listening anyway' argument.  

I have no problem with saying my words, hell, I use my real name here anyway, but I do have a problem giving them to someone who seems to be a dick about it.  

Or giving them to a community full of shitheads.

I don't know what you mean by that.

No, you don't.  Which makes you a pretty crappy judge at this point, which is probably why the jjayson flame-up led to this whole silly post in the first place.  And if you want to try and act like the two aren't related, go for it, but the record speaks for itself.

Gosh, I've wanted to delete this post like 10 times, but I keep coming back to the idea that I need to say it.  

Then, I walked away for a while, ran into this localroger diary, and realized that I wasn't as off-base as I may have thought.

Yea, I could have done that route, and put this rant in my diary...where it would be istantly attacked and shat upon by the 13-year-olds you decided were your core constituency

Your experiment is failing.  You can step out of the system and realize that, making the leap to the obvious instead of waiting for it to be placed on your lap on silver platter. Or you can watch it fall apart from a distance and pick up the pieces, analyzing them to your heart's content.

But heck, why do anything when you only have to wish in a .sig for any ole thing to come true?

Up to you, Action Man.

Maybe that's all there is. Maybe you're just angry.

Wouldn't you be angry if something you contributed to over a number of years turned to crap before your very eyes?  

...

guess not.
--
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
..or simply
[ Parent ]

Too many options (2.93 / 15) (#20)
by Kasreyn on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:27:30 AM EST

Rusty, narrow this down to only about three or four choices. Even in two weeks, with 10 options there's going to be very little difference between the #1 and #2 results, and no clear majority. Which means you'll please the largest minority, and piss off the majority. You'll be able to get a clear mandate with fewer options.

On the actual subject at hand: if you decide to allow comment deletion, IMO it *must* include a placeholder (if only to keep the threaded view mode from becoming totally misleading!). This isn't from an opinion but simply from a site design perspective. Feel free to have it say nothing but "anonymous k5er said something or other in reply" with no other identifying information. And if someone replied to them quoting their comment and calling them by name, then that's just too bad.

Another question is security. I assume a standard login will be used to effect deletion. I suggest there be a checkbox AND an action button. The action button will return an error if the checkbox is not also selected. This will prevent accidental erasures (two clicks necessary).

Personally, I feel comment deletion should be allowed, with placeholders. Perhaps even comment editing also, though that should include an "edited by username at timestamp" line at the end. Diary deletion is a no-brainer, too (and all the comments in it, too! tough luck for diary commentators, but IMO the diarist deserves this right).

However, if a story was voted up and posted by the k5 community, IMO it becomes part of k5's content, and it and its attached comments should not be killable by any one member of the community, even the original writer of the story.

One idea for an option is the ability for the writer to "disavow" his own story publically (in case he changes his mind later and regrets having said it). This could be done with a special comment which would always be displayed first (right after the story body) and be un-hideable by any user, containing only the text "the author of this story wishes it to be known that he has disavowed writing it and desires no further association with it." The reason I suggest this is due to my opinion that stories should not be deletable; however, I feel that authors should have SOME way of publically retracting ill-advised or simply regretted stories.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
public disavow option - good idea - (nt) (1.40 / 5) (#27)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:35:23 AM EST



[ Parent ]
I disagree (2.60 / 5) (#30)
by Rahaan on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:40:18 AM EST

you'll probably see one overwhelming choice (no deletion) with two or three others close to each other but behind the most popular.  The rest of them will only have a tiny fraction of the votes.


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]
true (2.00 / 5) (#33)
by aphasia on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:42:14 AM EST

That pattern has already manifested.

"You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
[ Parent ]

question (1.80 / 5) (#53)
by TheModerate on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:14:27 AM EST

How come the lines on your posts don't go all the way across my browser window like the other posts do?

"What a man has in himself is, then, the chief element in his happiness." -- Schopenhauer
[ Parent ]

Which lines? (2.25 / 4) (#54)
by Kasreyn on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:19:35 AM EST

If you mean the quote, then you may notice that I post in html formatted mode, and I deliberately place line breaks to preserve the proper formatting of Khayyam's verse.

If there are any other problems with formatting of my comments, I wouldn't know what was causing them. I don't see them when I view my own.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
2nd round (none / 1) (#246)
by mumble on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 08:30:51 AM EST

Instead of having just one round of voting, have 2 or several. First round picks the best 4, say, then you vote on those 4 and narrow it down to the best. (or you could extend it further, with say 3 rounds of voting or whatever).

-----
stats for a better tomorrow
bitcoin: 1GsfkeggHSqbcVGS3GSJnwaCu6FYwF73fR
"They must know I'm here. The half and half jug is missing" - MDC.
"I've grown weary of googling the solutions to my many problems" - MDC.
[ Parent ]
Disavow option (none / 1) (#382)
by protogeek on Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 03:53:26 PM EST

The "disavow" option is a good idea. It's only fair (and encourages rare, welcome behaviour) to allow someone to correct themselves if they've grown up since making a petty, stupid comment, or if they've found out new facts that contradict something they said.

Originally, I was going to vote for deleting diaries only, but on reflection, I went for no deletions. Diaries are more personal, sure, but they're still being posted on a public website, and when one makes one's opinions or information public, one loses the ability to make them private again. The local newspaper will not tear up a certain page in every library archive, subscriber residence, and recycle bin if a writer comes to regret their letter to the editor; why should K5 be expected to do the equivalent? If someone wants total control over their diary postings, let them get their own website and link to it in their sig.

[ Parent ]

Most important is a policy (2.76 / 13) (#21)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:28:05 AM EST

Just having a stated policy is the most important thing here, whatever that policy is. We all know what happens when there's uncertainty, it just gets ugly and ends up in the diary section. The lack of some stated policies about administrative powers is the largest single issue that killed Slashdot.

I vote for allowing users to delete their comments and diaries, I agree that stories are basically everyone's and should not be deleted. Plus it's rare for a story to have text a user might want to delete later. Placeholders are unnecessary for diaries. I know that if there is a link to the diary it gets broken but otherwise diaries are top-level and deleting them doesn't break the flow of anything.

Well that's my vote. As I said just get a policy up there, any policy.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.

whatever happened to anonymization? (2.54 / 11) (#25)
by infinitera on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:32:16 AM EST

Wasn't there something that would keep posts and stories, but re-assign them to Anonymous Hero or whatever? Don't think I can vote till I know if that sort of thing is an option. I think that would be best, along with diary hiding.

Erm (2.71 / 7) (#28)
by rusty on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:35:52 AM EST

I actually meant to include that. But thinking back on it, I kind of think I'll do that anyway. It's not such a site-policy thing if you want to just close your account and remove your name from stuff, but don't care if you leave all the actual stuff there.

I do plan to add an "anonymize" option, as well as whatever deletion choice is the result here, if any.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Yeah. (none / 2) (#37)
by aphrael on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:48:34 AM EST

I've done this in the past, and will do so in the future.

[ Parent ]
Hm. This reminds me. (none / 2) (#51)
by rmg on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:05:00 AM EST

I noticed something like this happened to/with vleth. What's the deal?

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

vleth just had a name change, no? (none / 2) (#52)
by infinitera on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:06:51 AM EST

No biggie, I would think.

Though the only one I recall before that was terpia->terpy.

[ Parent ]

Sorta. (none / 1) (#141)
by eann on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:29:26 AM EST

His name changed to anyonymous [35789].

If he's posting under a new acct with a new name, I'm curious what it is; I usually enjoyed his diaries, but I haven't been around much the last couple months and I feel out of touch with everyone.


Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men. —MLK

$email =~ s/0/o/; # The K5 cabal is out to get you.


[ Parent ]
I think it's silly to allow fickle deletion (2.77 / 9) (#29)
by Rahaan on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:37:29 AM EST

Especially for a reason like jjayson's.  Otherwise, what is the point of this site?  Not only would it leave gaping holes which would not make sense to anyone reading it, puts undue strain on the admins, and makes the long-term reason for this site's existence to be cheapened harshly.  I would seriously consider never coming back here regularly, as I may as well watch a chatroom on IRC with political/technological topics scroll by.

Then again, I have the same feelings about this site sans a good search - it's very aggravating to try and find an old story or diary I wish to read again, as, apart from the difficulty of just remembering who or what was said (enough to use in a valid search, at least), the search is either broken or a cheap facsimile.  Ultimately, this site has no point without a feasible search function, and would have little to no point if stories/comments/diaries were deleted on the whim of a user.

I don't like the idea of reminding someone of every little stupid thing they've ever said, and there are certain situations (legal or stalker issues, perhaps) where deletion would make sense.  But to delete it just because they felt like having their words deleted?  Please.  jjayson's request is childish, in that he got mad at the admins and does not want them to 'benefit' from his past actions any longer.  Grow the fuck up.  If you are worried about people misconstruing your stories as continued support for the site, then write a diary or submit a story saying why you no longer support the site and that any past submissions should be read in that context.

One possible solution to this 'problem' would be anonymizing comments - I've never looked at the scoop code and don't really have any idea as to the specifics of how it works, but it might be possible to change the author of comments/stories to "anonymous" or something similar, which would preserve the words while accomplishing what the deletion-requester desires, without any ugly holes in threads.


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all

addendum (2.66 / 6) (#31)
by Rahaan on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:41:48 AM EST

I think it is absolutely absurd to suggest deleting any stories unless there is some overbearing legal issue.


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]
well it's absolutely absurd too, (2.16 / 6) (#49)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:00:46 AM EST

if a story, that got quite good comments, has been voted down and leaves all those comments homelessly lingering  around in the archives with no story to refer to.

If a story gets voted down, why don't the comments go down with the story as well? Those comments are as absurd by themselves as a story with a lot of deleted comments that might interrupt a threads thought flow.

If this site proclaims to be a democratic and public site, the user should have control over his own comments. I am sure you will see less deletions as you might fear there would be, anyhow.

[ Parent ]

I don't think so (2.75 / 4) (#58)
by Rahaan on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:27:05 AM EST

voted down stories are another matter:  they never really "existed" on k5.  Non-members could never have witnessed their existence.  Dumped comments are preserved for the same reason dumped stories are:  so the owner can look back at them and either re-work them into something better, which would get published on the actual site, or leave them be.

The site is a democratically governed arachive for information and intellectual discussion.  What one posts then becomes a belonging of the community.  To alter it ex-post-facto would alter the site's entire premise; you may as well allow people to edit their comments.  It would change the basis for every single discussion.  Stories which were originally voted up by the community may no longer be as worthy - if half of the comments were deleted from a story you +1'd, would you still have voted for it?  To have the site be so dynamic would be such a drastic change that it would not longer be K5, rather a website-based mailing list with half-assed logging features.


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]

Hah, just imagine (none / 2) (#76)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:33:45 AM EST

voted down President's administration never really "existed" in the US? US citizens would never have witnessed what "they" did ... :-)

I tell you for the person who wrote the story and the people who made comments to the story, the story existed. And that is what this is all about.

Someone made an effort to comment to a story that is later dumped. You argue that this comment is archived to give the owner of the comment the option to make it a better comment out of it and republish it the next time around?

Hell no, if the user thought he made a decent comment to a story and gets busted, because the story is gone, all he is left with is anger to have wasted his time to have made a good comment the first place. He certainly wouldn't go back and say, oh my, my comment was sooo bad and the dumped story was sooo good, now I have to rewrite my comment better and post it again at the next opportunity.

You say non-members could never have witnessed the dumped stories - right - but do you really think non-members, who come to the site, would search in the archives for "good stories"? I doubt it.

They would come and read what's actually currently on display, they run into "guys with an attitude" and start searching this guys comments, diaries etc.

Going into the comment archives he finds a massive amount of comments of that guy that can't related anymore to any articles, because they have been dumped. THAT is ok for you, but if a story has threads that might have holes like swiss cheese, because some people might have decided to withdraw their comments, that is NOT ok for you? Why? Where's the logic?

[ Parent ]

what? (none / 2) (#185)
by Rahaan on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:31:17 PM EST

Voted down Presidents are, er, never President.  Their administration could not have "done" anything...
Hell no, if the user thought he made a decent comment to a story and gets busted, because the story is gone, all he is left with is anger to have wasted his time to have made a good comment the first place. He certainly wouldn't go back and say, oh my, my comment was sooo bad and the dumped story was sooo good, now I have to rewrite my comment better and post it again at the next opportunity.
That doesn't even make sense.  Why would you get angry about posting to a story that was dumped?  Vote it up, and suggest in an editorial why others should do the same, and chances are better it won't get lost.  If there is a similar thread elsewhere, he can use his now-gone comment as a base.  Rewriting a comment and using it somewhere else, with people who haven't seen the original discussion, has nothing to do with it being a 'bad' comment.

I think you have serious behavioral issues if you believe, based on your own activity, that people who visit this site immediately find 'people with an attitude' and read every single one of his comments.  That is absurd.  It also explains a lot of the childishness and bickering that occur here.

Comments complement the story.  People read stories they find interesting.  We vote on stories, deciding what the 'k5 community' finds interesting and post it to the rest of the world.  Without that mechanism, this is just a barely glorified livejournal - if all comments and all stories, regardless of voting, were displayed on the site, what would be the point of voting?  It would just be the diary section of K5.

I very much enjoy going through old stories and reading them.  It's not really fun, right now, because the search function is so goddam broken, so my exploits are usually set off thanks to the link from another person describing an interesting thread or story.  If I'm ever bored, or if there's nothing new and interesting on the frontpage, I'll sometimes randomly grab a page of old stories - like, say, clicking on Op-Ed, then changing the page number to x, and finding something interesting.

There are hundreds to thousands of stories here, and hundreds of thousands of comments, of which I've only read a tiny fraction.  To go back and find stories I previously enjoyed missing, or missing comments in stories I am trying to enjoy is antithetical to kuro5hin.


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]

This isn't about jjayson (2.40 / 5) (#34)
by rusty on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:42:20 AM EST

It's been a problem before, and it will be again, regardless of him. That is one noisy but relatively unimportant case, and you definitely shouldn't decide based on anyone in particular.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
true (none / 3) (#50)
by Rahaan on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:02:08 AM EST

but this is a fine example of a silly reason for deletion.  Offhand, I can't think of a legitimate reason for removal outside of very limited situations where there is an immediate need for someone's information to be hidden, or something.


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]
jjayson (none / 1) (#269)
by Mitheral on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 03:08:48 PM EST

Could someone in the know post a short summary of why jjayson, fluffy grue, or webwench requested full deletion. It may give those of us with out a clue some context in this discussion.

[ Parent ]
-1; irrelevant. (none / 1) (#270)
by aphasia on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 04:31:35 PM EST


"You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
[ Parent ]

not at all irrelevant - (nt) (none / 1) (#317)
by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:14:24 PM EST



[ Parent ]
it's not short (none / 0) (#371)
by Wah on Tue Dec 09, 2003 at 05:33:05 PM EST

but here's the second half of the jjayson story.

I'm curious about grue too.

The context of the discussion is a deteriorating web community, IMHO.
--
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
..or simply
[ Parent ]

Did you say something about gaping holes? (1.83 / 6) (#43)
by STFUYHBT on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:51:49 AM EST

Ah, just kidding, I wouldn't post a goatse link. That's how much I love you guys.

-
"Of all the myriad forms of life here, the 'troll-diagnostic' is surely the lowest, yes?" -medham
[ Parent ]
But I would... (1.14 / 7) (#86)
by Stick on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:21:34 AM EST

goatse.cx




Only kidding. I wouldn't do that either. It's really tub girl.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
That's disgusting (2.50 / 6) (#102)
by hulver on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:22:02 AM EST

I click that link in order to be greeted by a gapeing anus, and instead I get a fountain of shit.

DON'T CLICK THAT LINK. IT'S TUBGIRL!

--
HuSi!
[ Parent ]

You're just jealous... (2.25 / 8) (#103)
by Stick on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:37:15 AM EST

That there isn't quality content like this over on HuSi.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
The net treats censorship as damage and re-routes (2.56 / 16) (#32)
by Nugget on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:41:54 AM EST

I suspect that any policy which places few or small barriers on comment and story deletion will just spawn other sites which attempt to archive comments and stories to prevent their loss after deletion. All it takes is one motivated perl wonk who favors the "no deletion" option to reduce or eliminate the practicality of any policy which supports user-driven deletion. I'm in favor of "no deletion" and I think that's just an acceptable burden on a user for having the ability to reach so many readers with their words. If a user wants to be able to recall their words at a later date, let them self-publish. Sites like k5 are commons and their value is reduced if user's can revise history by deleting their contributions.

well, Perl wonks will be an endangered species (1.80 / 5) (#39)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:49:36 AM EST

pretty soon, once it becomes clear that "reaching so many readers" is equal to reaching so many "liberty-challenged" humans... :-)

[ Parent ]
I don't understand that. (none / 2) (#99)
by OzJuggler on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 04:53:07 AM EST

Huh? Why?
What liberty are you talking about?
How does its denial eliminate "Perl wonks"?
"And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.
[ Parent ]
Hey, he spoke of the Perl wonks, who (none / 3) (#286)
by mami on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 08:38:23 PM EST

make deletion of my comments on the internet impossible, because they are the "no deletion zealots".

They take away my control over my thoughts. But my thoughts need to be free. So, I am going to fight them Perl wonk zealots, and because I am a bit liberty-challenged, I guess I simply shoot them. I am good at it, I think they will become an endangered species pretty soon, when they have seen us mamis roaring. :-).

Sigh ... I know Germans have no taste in jokes, forgive me.

[ Parent ]

Even though it's typed, it's still just talk! (1.50 / 4) (#209)
by la princesa on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:17:10 PM EST

Internet types have a really hard time appreciating that this is how most people use the internet-- as another form of chit-chat.  There is NOTHING whatsoever lost by reams and reams of idle chit-chat not being 'saved for posterity'.  It is not 'history'.  It does not need to be 'archived'.  It's just blather, and not unique or insightful blather 99999 times of 100000 either.  I am seriously bloody tired of people such as archive.org and this above poster thinking that mere idle conversation is all that worth saving.  It's fucking not, else we'd all be tooling around with tape recorders and microphones for every conversation we had with another person or group of people.  

___
<qpt> Disprove people? <qpt> What happens when you disprove them? Do they disappear in a flash of logic?
[ Parent ]
Question (1.83 / 12) (#38)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:49:23 AM EST

Why doesn't jjayson just ask Jesus to delete his comments?  I understand Jesus is even more powerful than rusty

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
he's only a rabit right-winger (2.40 / 5) (#45)
by infinitera on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:53:22 AM EST

Not a fundamentalist who deems science as works of the devil; that is to say, I don't think he has strange beliefs about causality and the real world.

[ Parent ]
A rabit right-winger? (2.83 / 6) (#57)
by mcc on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:24:37 AM EST

Hm, what would the characteristics of a rabbit right-winger be? Would they promote the doctrine that whoever can get to the lettuce first should get to keep it, and the government shouldn't try to interfere with this to ensure "fairness"?

[ Parent ]
they like "carrot and stick" policies (2.62 / 8) (#90)
by yicky yacky on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:46:17 AM EST

nt


yicky yacky
**************
'The actual reasonable Britons are correct, you're being a cock.' - Hide The Hamster.
[ Parent ]
BTW, I commend you on offering this vote (nt) (2.57 / 7) (#41)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:50:50 AM EST



Only diaries (2.55 / 9) (#55)
by gyan on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:23:51 AM EST

They are personal.

Removing comments is definitely taboo, aince that interrupts the chain in a thread and leaves no context.

A better option for when a user leaves would be:

1)Remove all diaries
2)Keep all stories and comments, but anonymize them. If I leave, this comment gets its .sig stripped and user changed to 'Ex-user'. Perhaps, 'Ex-user-104' if you wish to atleast identify if comments are from the same ex-user, but without identifying the user. Also, to ensure that people don't search and try to piece the identity puzzle, search of usernames starting with "ex-user" is disabled.

********************************

Diaries are public (2.50 / 6) (#106)
by marx on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 07:31:39 AM EST

If you post a diary here, everyone else can read it. I don't see how this can be misunderstood.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

It's not misunerstood (none / 1) (#242)
by gyan on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 05:36:35 AM EST

Just that diaries are peersonal thoughts.  They don't request the same fiat of interaction that a story or comments within a story do.

********************************

[ Parent ]
Revote idea (2.50 / 8) (#56)
by godix on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:24:24 AM EST

Allow no removing of anything but allow everyone the ability to edit their own diaries and comments. Have the system automatically insert 'This comment has been changed' as the first line of the post just so people realize it isn't what was originally said. This way if someone reveals to much info they can remove it (IE removing real life telephone numbers after the troll gets tired of crank calls at 3am) and it's possible to remove everything if the user thinks it's that important to do so. The pain in the neck it'd be would ensure that users didn't do it on a lark or something.

Well, at least I shall die as I have lived. Completely surrounded by morons.
- Black Mage
I don't like that idea at all (2.85 / 7) (#60)
by Rahaan on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:29:19 AM EST

It makes reading older threads impossible, with all of the editing.


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]
Ugh (3.00 / 6) (#62)
by rusty on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:32:50 AM EST

Television Without Pity has comment editing and a lot of their threads are incomprehensible with all the editing. I really dislike that idea too.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
True enough (3.00 / 5) (#67)
by godix on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:58:35 AM EST

But on the other hand it would have given jjayson the power to change what he felt needed changing WITHOUT blowing up into an arguement on if he'd be just locked or totally removed. It may very well have been an acceptable solution to Webwench or Fluffy Grue in the past. Well, probably not Fluffy, but perhaps Webwench.

Perhaps a modified idea would be better. AFAIK the current issue and past issues with this were all concerning diaries rather than comments. Letting a user edit their diaries but not edit their comments could be a good solution. This would avoid the huge gaps in conversations, or even worse, trolls editing their comments to cast replies in a totally different context. As an added bonus people could add updates to a diary they made earlier that day instead of posting multiple diaries and people who post failed submissions into the diaries (IE half the fiction challenge stories) could still have the ability to edit their story as needed.

Well, at least I shall die as I have lived. Completely surrounded by morons.
- Black Mage[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 1) (#198)
by jup on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:25:45 PM EST

Yeah, I agree. Diary is everybody's personal thing and I don't see problem with editing and deleting of user's diaries. If somebody abuses it, nobody will check his diary, so there's no problem here.
--
Two beers or not two beers. That's the question.
[ Parent ]
Well (2.50 / 4) (#94)
by Betcour on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 04:15:05 AM EST

Most of the boards around allow editing (the feature is built in on most "ready to deploy" BBS), and this is hardly a problem at all, at least on the one I visit daily.

[ Parent ]
I'm against deletion (2.91 / 24) (#59)
by m0nkyman on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:27:06 AM EST

The reason is simple. By allowing deletion, the thought that "this can be deleted" is always at the back of people's heads. I firmly believe that people have to be responsible for their actions. If they say something stupid, so be it. They said something stupid. We all say stupid things sometimes. I can't count the number of times I've looked at a preview of a comment, and then thought, "nope that's stupid", and not posted it.

I think that removing the idea that what is being said is for posterity will downgrade the signal to noise ratio and the quality of the community. The people we want to participate will be a bit more careful about what they post when they know that it is forever. The people we don't want, won't care either way(they're probably posting from a throway account anyway); they are here to be destructive. Even some of the trolls slowly become constructive to the community after a while, and that progression is important to be able to see.

The final reason is that I remember when this came up at The Well, and it upset a LOT of people. A major contributor leaving can leave a gaping hole in the site.

It's a hard decision Rusty, and I hope you make the right one.

cheers!

If I can't dance, then I won't join your revolution-- Emma Goldman

Abandoning on preview (2.50 / 8) (#61)
by rusty on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:30:02 AM EST

I can't count the number of times I've looked at a preview of a comment, and then thought, "nope that's stupid", and not posted it.

I do that at least half a dozen times a day. If people only knew the sheer volume of stuff I write and never post. You'd be astounded.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

well, you are the exception (1.66 / 9) (#72)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:14:36 AM EST

95 % of people do the opposite and you can't close your eyes to this reality.

[ Parent ]
Inaccurate. (2.00 / 4) (#75)
by Motekye on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:32:20 AM EST

I do; Apparently many others do, as well. Perhaps you should make a poll in your next diary / submission to confirm or discredit this assumption.


Grrr....
[ Parent ]
listen (1.50 / 8) (#80)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:51:50 AM EST

Go into the diary section and pull randomly 1000 comments. How large is the number of comments of which you could imagine the commentator has spent self-critical, naval-gazing thoughts, spent time to rewrite, discard, write again etc. for more than a minute before they were posted?

Get real ...

[ Parent ]

diary vs story (2.57 / 7) (#81)
by Joh3n on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:10:35 AM EST

I would argue people don't think nearly as much about posting to diaries as they do to stories.  They don't call it the ghetto for nothing.

How do I know?  I just spent the time to make sure I actually had apostrophes.  I hate apostrophes.
---------------------------------
You can learn a lot about someone by popping in their un-rewound pr0n tape and seeing where exactly they came. [ Parent ]

Poll is up (none / 1) (#233)
by m0nkyman on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:06:17 PM EST

I've put one up in case anybody cares to check the results


If I can't dance, then I won't join your revolution-- Emma Goldman
[ Parent ]
I oftern abandon a post after preview (none / 1) (#220)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 07:06:32 PM EST

Perhaps a poll would be nice, other wise you 95% figure doesn't really mean anything.

[ Parent ]
You should make another account (2.40 / 5) (#83)
by Stick on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:15:05 AM EST

Ruston: the directors cut


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
here's an idea... (2.80 / 5) (#92)
by Mindcrym on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 04:02:26 AM EST

What if you could retract a comment posting within, say, two minutes of posting? You might fire off some insanely stupid comment and then regret it. Or you might post something and realize that you botched the link you were so cleverly trying to add to your comment about President Bush and the White House or whatever. If you don't retract it quickly enough it stays around forever and you have to live with it as you posted it.

-Mindcrym

[ Parent ]
Or, (2.40 / 5) (#138)
by Canar on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:15:16 AM EST

You could hit preview, look at it for two minutes, realize it's shit and decide not to post it.

[ Parent ]
Preview (none / 1) (#245)
by mumble on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 08:14:31 AM EST

Use the preview button Luke.

I sometimes hit preview 10 or more times when I am trying to say something important/interesting. Re-reading and re-reading until I am satisfied with my post.

For the sake and quality of the site, I think more people should do the same.

-----
stats for a better tomorrow
bitcoin: 1GsfkeggHSqbcVGS3GSJnwaCu6FYwF73fR
"They must know I'm here. The half and half jug is missing" - MDC.
"I've grown weary of googling the solutions to my many problems" - MDC.
[ Parent ]

Not at all... (1.75 / 8) (#64)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:48:46 AM EST

The people we want to participate will be a bit more careful about what they post when they know that it is forever

Not at all, they just will be a bit more angry, because why would anyone have the right to impose an archival enforcement on a people-driven, democratic site, which claims to be under public ownership? Even a majority vote against comment deletion violates a civil right of the user of this site, because the minority user (those who request the right to delete their own comments) can rightfully demand the protection of their civil rights, even if they are in the minority.

The people of the WELL can be upset all they want to (and BTW WHY are they so upset about users requesting their rights over their own comments), it still doesn't give them the right over other people's comments.

Even if users on K5 know they consent to give up those rights (rusty's legal stuff), they are forced to consent and that is inconsistent with the proclaimed user-driven democracy on K5.

[ Parent ]

It's a social contract. (none / 2) (#226)
by m0nkyman on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 08:29:17 PM EST

To a certain degree this is a commons. Everyone is contributing to it, and to give one person the right to take away their comments is similar to the fencing of the west. It's taking away a piece of the commons. If you don't want to contribute to the commons, fine, don't. But I for one would be pissed if someone removed a comment that I had spent a lot of time writing a response to. It removes the context of my post, and I would find it insulting.

User driven democracy is all fine and good, but this is meta to that. This is about setting the ground rules for participation. Much like you need to be a citizen to vote in the US, and consent to pay taxes, serve on a jury, or any of the other things that are part of your duties as a citizen. This speaks to my other pet peeve. I grew up being taught that every right had a corresponding responsiblity. You're upset that your right to remove everything you've contributed to kuro5hin is being taken away but want no responsibility . I believe that the right is the ability to make comments, and I'm upset that people want to avoid their responsibility for their own comments.

If I can't dance, then I won't join your revolution-- Emma Goldman
[ Parent ]

Your conclusions are not justified (none / 2) (#342)
by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 07:06:03 PM EST

You're upset that your right to remove everything you've contributed to kuro5hin is being taken away but want no responsibility . I believe that the right is the ability to make comments, and I'm upset that people want to avoid their responsibility for their own comments.

How dare you say this?

Just because I insist on display rights to my comment, I don't automatically give up my responsibility to comment reasonably.

I could have tons of valid and important reasons to keep my right for removal of a completely responsibly written comment online.

In contrast there are very few responsible and justified reasons to take display rights away from the user.

[ Parent ]

What type of fool would assume otherwise? (2.80 / 5) (#178)
by Danzig on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:00:03 PM EST

Not to sound paranoid, but if someone wants to know what you typed here it is only a matter of how much they want it. Your jealous ex-lover might search through your diaries. The FBI, believing k5 to be the center of a terrorist organization, might get a team of the best data recovery experts in the field on the server to recover deleted comments. I cannot claim to be extremely proud of every comment I have ever posted here, but I always have approached them from the viewpoint that my words are permanent. Whatever rusty does, I will continue to do so.

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
How unfortunate. (1.58 / 12) (#63)
by rmg on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:35:49 AM EST

This news is really only interesting to those few dedicate freaks who spend all their time on this site. What respectable poster would care whether their posts stay here in perpetuity anyway?

Regular users just take things one thread at a time. Once the discussion is over, that's the last they think of the comments. Most people can't get into that insular circlejerk that is the diary section and so never post any compromising tidbit they feel the burning desire to remove.

This sort of behavior is really at the bottom of what's wrong with this site now. You have a sizable contingent of mouthbreathers infesting the site with their bickering. They use the diary section as a surrogate social outlet. It is enough to make any well-adjusted person ill, which is precisely what drives regular users away. It is also the real root of the crapflooding problem.

Rather than take measures to accomidate your net.kook population, I recommend eliminating the diary section or at least doing something to make it much less prominent. I think you'll find that after doing so, many of these issues will simply disappear.

Also, isn't it about time you closed registration? I think everyone already has their ten accounts and there aren't a lot of newcomers.

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks

hear, hear - this is rmg's exclusive (2.00 / 4) (#66)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:54:21 AM EST

old boy's club from now on.

Sorry guys, we don't accept new members. Unless you come back as gals on Thursdays to our weekle "lady's first" gathering.

Truly yours unrespectable poster, who insists on his rights to edit his words.

[ Parent ]

We accept too many 'new members' as it is. (none / 2) (#69)
by rmg on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:00:50 AM EST

We get about one new active user (most of whom are utterly uninteresting and not worth the screen space) a week. The rest are alternate accounts and lurkers. Alternate accounts should certainly not be encouraged and whether lurkers actually have accounts or not is really neither here nor there.

Having unlimited access to new accounts undercuts rusty's valiant anti-abuse measures a bit, don't you think?

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

How can rusty have technically any (none / 2) (#71)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:12:48 AM EST

anti-abuse measures that really will work, if he denies at the same time this site's users the only anti-abuse measure, which always will work, namely self-criticism, self-editing and finally the right to delete your own words.

How can he honestly proclaim that this is a democratic user-driven site AND be completely inconsistent in enforcing user's consent to give up the ownership rights of your comments to K5?

Doesn't make sense to me.

[ Parent ]

What? (2.20 / 5) (#73)
by rmg on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:21:42 AM EST



_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

here (none / 2) (#78)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:47:25 AM EST

If you have no choice and you are forced to agree to archival enforcement of your comments and diaries, then you can't call this "consent".

If the site is supposedly to be democratically and publicly owned and driven, the user must be granted ownership of his comments and the rights to do with them what he wants.


[ Parent ]

I call bull (3.00 / 5) (#84)
by Joh3n on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:16:02 AM EST

Utopian democratic waxing aside, name one other place where that rule applies.  I can just as well tell my boss to sod off tomorrow, but I sure as hell can't tell him 15 minutes later 'hey, I own that statement and now revoke it from the record.
---------------------------------
You can learn a lot about someone by popping in their un-rewound pr0n tape and seeing where exactly they came. [ Parent ]
But you could if you gave him pie [nt] (none / 1) (#87)
by Stick on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:22:52 AM EST




---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
Nope, there is a difference - (2.50 / 4) (#123)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:36:59 AM EST

First users who comment online don't work for rusty and don't get paid for it.

What rusty could (and I think even should do) is demanding some fees for offering diary space, because he rents them out a room in his house where the tenants can behave like they want. If he gives them the rights to do that, he can't deny the right of the tenants to throw out visitors from their rooms and retract their comments.

There is no default right for rusty to own his users comments, if this is a community driven, non-for-profit site, where the users are supposed to have the right to write the laws that govern this site.

It is my understanding that is what K5's intentions are for the future, or not?

As was said before, technically rusty can impose archival, but he can't guarantee and protect the rights of individual users over their own comments and diaries deletion, even if he wanted to. Any Perl guru can write code to make a user's intent to delete his words for good from the internet impossible.

That doesn't mean that the user has to give up his rights and can demand that these rights are respected to the extent rusty can technically do so.

Rusty seems to take the stand that it is in his power to enforce comment archival (from a technical and political view point), but knows that it is NOT in his power to enforce the opposite, the deletion of comments from the archives. (The Perl guru who can always mirror faster any submitted comment than the user could delete it etc.)

Just because he can't enforce a successful deletion policy, doesn't mean that the right of a user to delete his own comments are invalid or non existent. A user has the right to take ownership of his comments in the archives, how ever unsuccessful that might be, his rights exist and should not be violated just because the technology is more powerful to impose itself on our will than we are to impose our will on the technology.

[ Parent ]

giving up rights (none / 2) (#154)
by bearclaw on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:03:23 AM EST

By abiding by a written terms of service stating that all comments are owned by k5, couldn't a user give up their rights to their comments?  I don't know if k5 has such a thing, but if they did, wouldn't a user give up those rights?

It's the same with joining any organization - if you don't like the TOS, don't join.  Right?

From what you are saying, and maybe I am reading you incorrectly, people should have the right to redact anything they say?  So if you told a reporter something, later you should be able to tell them that they can't use your quote.  To me that is wrong.
-- bearclaw
[ Parent ]

Nobody should be forced to (none / 2) (#283)
by mami on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 08:29:04 PM EST

give up the right to control their own words, no way. The attempt itself I consider a crime.

[ Parent ]
I know I'm a little late in this conversation (none / 0) (#414)
by SyntheticAngel on Sat Mar 13, 2004 at 03:58:07 AM EST

Like the subject line shows, I know I'm a little late, so my apologies.  Additionally this is my first post, info only :)

First off you make some really good points, but your view takes the position of the individual owner, which is only partly justified.  It also seems to take the view that ownership and control are the same thing, but that is not always the case.

The debate may find similarities in the area of Open Source licensing.  With open source an individual owns whatever they write, it is theirs and that cannot be changed, but once it enters into a social relation that person agrees to give up any control over what it is they have written.  But note that they have not given up ownership or copyright.  Another person cannot come in and claim to have written what you have, but they can create derivative works, redistribute, or use without permission.  Why?  Because this is the set of social and social-property relationships upon which you and your property have entered.

Returning back to our current debate.  Whether we like it or not everything we say here is archived and out of our control, but we still own what we said, it is still ours and cannot be taken away from us.  But once it becomes communication, once it reaches out and connects two dots (so to speak) it is no longer under your control or anyones, other than the community in which its interaction takes place.  The giving up of control of what is said is inherent within communication.  Just look at marriage or relationships in general, I bet there are a lot of things you wish you could take back and some you wish the other person had never said.  But you can't, and nothing can change that.  There has never been a society or relationship that has allowed this as it would go against its very make-up.  So I'm a little confused when you say that it is an individuals right to delete whatever they have said, to destroy a conversation or relationship that it once constituted or formed the basis, when this right has never existed previously.

And just because technology gives us the individual the ability to do this doesn't mean we should allow it.  Which is what this poll is all about.  If we, as a majority, decide this right should not exist then it is not a right of the individual, nor is it an inherent right.  Just to say it one more time, you still own what you write, but to become communication you willingly forsake control.  That once your comment enters into a social relationship it becomes a social commodity (hmm..bad choice of words, maybe 'social unit' would be better?) in which case it is controlled by the people in aggregate though owned by you.


[ Parent ]

It could be said, rmg, (none / 2) (#133)
by Koutetsu on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:06:55 AM EST

that you are, also, uninteresting and not worth the screen space.

. . .
"the same thing will happen with every other effort. it will somehow be undermined because the trolls are more clever and more motivated than you
[ Parent ]
Jesus (2.18 / 16) (#65)
by Michael Moore on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:51:06 AM EST

What kind of pansy-ass girl needs to have all thier shit "deleted" from K5. Seriously, who gives a fuck. If you decide to post something here you have to fucking accept that whatever you write is going to be *GASP* available on the internet! If you can't handle this fact then why post in the first place?

And lets face it, 90% of people who want their shit deleted are asking for it it in the middle of some hissy-fit where they decide they hate K5 and regret ever coming here, or some bullshit like that. What purpose does it serve, then? If you're done with K5 then stop fucking visiting, and then it won't matter to you or anyone else that your piece of shit comments/diaries/whatever are still here. Chances are nobody will remember you in a week's time anyway.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael

In a democry we don't have to accept (1.85 / 7) (#70)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:03:54 AM EST

the destruction of your civil rights, even not if it's done by *GASP* the almighy internet that miraculously obfuscatingly takes away our ownership rights over our words.

Well, no, I can't handle that, and I will continue to post about it ad nauseam. In case I am that pansy-a** girl you had in mind, rest assured I don't regret one moment having ever come here and engage in hissy-fits (I don't know what that means though) and other bullshit. I thought it's my duty.



[ Parent ]

civil rights? (none / 2) (#151)
by bearclaw on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:57:09 AM EST

Please explain how not allowing deletion is violating your civil rights?
-- bearclaw
[ Parent ]
hmm? (none / 1) (#212)
by Skwirl on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:38:54 PM EST

I believe mami is referring to the First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of time travelling history alteration..."

"It says no such thing," you say? Wait, hold on while I warm up my flux capacitor.

--
"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
[ Parent ]

hrmph (2.85 / 14) (#68)
by Joh3n on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:00:14 AM EST

As I see it, doing nothing at all is the only choice.  Say user foobar wants stuff removed for some reason, and foobar's diaries are removed, but comments remained outside of the diary.  Back referencing to and the context of foobar's comments allow people to at least partially figure things out if they're clever.

Name switching doesn't work for the same reason, since people replying to foobar will often say 'foobar, you're a moron' even though the name is now Peanut_butter9837.

Full deletion raises the spectre of threads making no sense, but again, any replies or other diaries by other people allow one to glean information.

As such, the only way to go is no deletion, with the 'caveat emptor' warning at the front when one makes an account, explicitly stating 'what you type here stays.  You have been warned.'
---------------------------------
You can learn a lot about someone by popping in their un-rewound pr0n tape and seeing where exactly they came.

Your solutions lack pie [nt] (1.00 / 5) (#82)
by Stick on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:12:53 AM EST




---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
this is true (none / 2) (#85)
by Joh3n on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:16:50 AM EST

and thus, I weep.
---------------------------------
You can learn a lot about someone by popping in their un-rewound pr0n tape and seeing where exactly they came. [ Parent ]
Your tears also lack pie [nt] (1.25 / 4) (#88)
by Stick on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:24:13 AM EST




---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
this is true (none / 2) (#89)
by Joh3n on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:42:09 AM EST

I am empty now.  Empty of pie.
---------------------------------
You can learn a lot about someone by popping in their un-rewound pr0n tape and seeing where exactly they came. [ Parent ]
Modified #5 (2.80 / 10) (#74)
by Kwil on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:27:08 AM EST

Diary and comment deletion, but not stories, with placeholders, only on the closing of the account.

Stuff will not disappear for 3 days, account can be resumed within that time.
After that the placeholders are inserted, and the account password is randomized.

The account is kept as normal and deleted whenever inactive accounts are normally deleted.

This way, hissy fits have a chance to come back and the trolls can't post short-term comments for the express purpose of making people rage at something stupid, then removing the stupid bit.

Basically, a way to allow there to be some consequences to actions while still allowing people to get rid of their stuff when they're going.

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


I Second the Motion (nt) (2.50 / 4) (#121)
by jrincayc on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:24:45 AM EST

I think this makes sense, since it allows people to remove things they want, but not immediatly, and not selectivly.

[ Parent ]
6 ... 1 (2.62 / 8) (#77)
by j0s)( on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:39:54 AM EST

personally, i feel that you made a conscience choice at the time to throw your idea/opinion/propaganda into the public domain by hitting post. therefore, i am completely against people being able to delete comments and the like. that will cause holes in in the discussion and, if done enough, will cause discussions to become nonsensical. so i vote that stories and comments must stay as they were posted.

i do think that we should have full control over a diary. i couldve gotten mad at my boss, ranted about it, then realised i didnt want it on my diary's section. just as a pen and paper diary, i can throw it away, or tear pages out, so i vote for full user control over ones diaries.

i do like the idea that upon closing of your account, all your stories and comments will be renamed to something non identifying. if "no deletion" is not a possibility, then the second best option would be to delete the account and erase all identifying marks.

so i vote, full user control of diaries, no deletion of stories or comments, but im willing to compromise and say you can have your username erased from all stories and comments posted by you, but the story or comment must stay so that the discussions make sense.

-- j0sh



The update allows me to say: (2.77 / 9) (#79)
by leviramsey on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:51:21 AM EST

"No deletion allowed. Ever."

The main legit reason I see for deletion is that you inadvertently posted something which may or may not come back to haunt you. Renaming the disabled account should solve a lot of those issues (and allow you to retain that username on, say, IRC or on other sites).

I would think that it might also be prudent to allow, if a user selects this, to offer the option of going through all the user's comments and diaries (not stories) and doing an s/$OLD_USERNAME/[TEXT EXPUNGED]/g. It might also be reasonable to allow, on a case by case basis expunging of other identifying information (by identifying, I mean something that actually states one's meatspace name).



One thing that keeps on coming up... (2.80 / 10) (#91)
by La Camiseta on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:46:28 AM EST

seems to be the point that this site is a democratic site, and by not allowing an individual to delete their comments is a violation of their civil rights.

Now, first off, this isn't so. Part of becoming a member of this site, as Rusty mentioned, is accepting that your comments are there for everyone to read as long as the site exists.

Another way to look at it is by comparing it to reality. In real life there's no way to take back what you've said. No matter what you do you can't go back in time and remove that comment. If this site is to be a reflection of reality (however slim of one that may be), then we should obviously try to emulate reality as much as possible.

No deletion.

(Only in exceptional circumstances, like someone gets into a flame war and someone else posts their phone number or address, and then there should be a boldface line in the comment telling that it was edited and what was taken out. Don't even delete the comment, just ban the offending user)
־‮־

wrong - as said before - (1.66 / 6) (#156)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:05:40 AM EST

First, it's convenient to say that members of this site have to accept that ythei own comments are there for everybody to read "as long as this site exists", just because that's technically the only way rusty can design the site as he can't guarantee the opposite, namely a bullet proof deletion by users of user's own comments. In that sense it is not a user's choice but a technical condition on which the site has to operate, rusty being for or against it.

Second, if this site should emulate reality, then it should just do that. But it absolutely doesn't. Millions of comments people make in real life have no long term consequences because they are forgotten, reach only very few people and are never archived.

That's the reality of spoken words in real life.

You don't HAVE to take away your spoken word in real life from the exposure and searches by  millions of listeners, because in real life your spoken  words didn't reach them and the words that did reach a listener, are 99 percent forgotten after a while and don't leave a paper trace behind them.

Here on K5 your spoken word leave a decade long digital trace behind and it is in rusty's power to decide if the traces are searchable for decades, years, or months. THAT is completely not the case for spoken words in REALITY.

Yes, emulate reality. Let comments die as they would in reality, let users restrict the number of listerners that his words are directed to like in real life. Don't archive, as in real life you don't either.


[ Parent ]

sorry for sloppy typos and one more thing (2.25 / 4) (#157)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:11:26 AM EST

real life also doesn't allow you to have multiple personalities without being declared mentally sick. Online life does allow it or better can't even prevent it from happening.

Considering that you can't emulate real life technically, you should find solutions to the effects that online conditions pose on users and try to remedy them as best as you can.

[ Parent ]

Comparisons to real life (2.80 / 5) (#164)
by rusty on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:26:23 AM EST

I think making analogies to various offline situations is a bad way to go about deciding. I can frame my analogy one way and think there should be no deletion, and frame it another way and think there should. In both cases, the analogy doesn't match what we're actually doing, which is fundamentally different from anything that happens offline.

What we ought to decide is not who can argue most fervently for their analogy, but simply how we want this world to work.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Inevitability (none / 2) (#190)
by sab39 on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:45:35 PM EST

I came to the conclusion some time ago that technology is inevitably leading to a scenario where a large selection of any given person's public comments from many years past will be available to anyone at any time they choose to look for them (phase 1).

I think a natural side effect of this happening will be an eventual adjustment of attitudes towards those comments - the "what would someone find if they looked for my old comments" factor will force people to accept that old comments shouldn't be held against anyone (phase 2).

I don't think this is going to happen soon, necessarily, but I do think that it's inevitable that it will eventually happen.

This is why I've never made any attempt to purge any past public comments I've ever made from any archive, despite the fact that I'm sure I'd be highly embarrassed by some of the content if I ever bothered to search for it. Call it a passive attempt to speed the process through the unpleasant phase 1 into the desirable phase 2, rather than trying to resist the inevitable.

The connection to your comment? You are asking for opinions on how "we want this world to work". I think it's worth questioning whether we really have any control over how this world will work in the long term, and whether that affects our decisions on what to do in the shorter term.
--
"Forty-two" -- Deep Thought
"Quinze" -- Amélie

[ Parent ]

I doubt that (none / 2) (#203)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 05:54:40 PM EST

I think a natural side effect of this happening will be an eventual adjustment of attitudes towards those comments - the "what would someone find if they looked for my old comments" factor will force people to accept that old comments shouldn't be held against anyone (phase 2).

Highly unlikely, the opposite is much more probable. People come to realize that old comments will be searched for and held against them, it's just a matter of time and when the next democracy goes down the drain.

[ Parent ]

Ok, here how I want this to work (none / 1) (#210)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:24:24 PM EST

for the time being. First, this "This" generates a lot of crap and a lot of hurt feelings. This "This" is a trap. This "This" isn't for real, but it hurts for real.

So, here what I like to see.

Deletion feature for my own diaries and my own comments in my diaries. If I am not allowed to delete my comments to posted articles, then I want at least a trade back or compensation for this lost right.

If you take my right away to delete my comments on articles that have been voted up, then I take your rights away to post in my diary what you want and take the right to delete your comments in my diary space. Bingo, we are even.

I really don't like to give users deletion rights over other people's comments, as I said before. I am for self-censorship but not for censorship of other people's comments.

But as people are so absolutely darn serious about having no deletion rights for your own comments on published articles, that's the only compromise and deal I would accept and settle for.

Anyhow, there are just that much smart things people have to write about, may be you should just be happy and reduce your appetite for "interesting stuff" a bit.

In addition I want to see that the comments to articles that have been voted down, disappear from the searchable database.

I can argue the same way other argue for opposing deletion rights for article's comments. Like articles make no sense with swiss cheese-like threads hanging loose from placeholder hole to placeholder hole, the comments with no article to refer to make no sense either. So, get rid of them and don't archive them.

May be those homeless left-over comments can be sent into the diary space of the users or to their email address, so that the user can still "use" them, rewrite them for other stuff etc. Just pull them out of the searchable public archives.

I think that's a compromise I could live with, though I don't believe it will change anything significantly to the better.

[ Parent ]

My solution (2.14 / 7) (#93)
by strlen on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 04:11:56 AM EST

  • Administrator approved removal of stories that "get someone in shit", such exceptions must be made regardless of what the general policy
  • At will, and at random deletion of comments/diaries/posts however, will reduce the quality of debate. As such, I suggest this system:
A "nuke me" button, which will erase all the comments and diaries you've posted, and remove all the ratings you've made, and remove your name from any story you may have posted (though not removing the stories itself). However, this option shouldn't be free: either you shouldn't be allowed to make any activity (besides voting) after having hit this button for a week or so, or you should be limited to times you press it before you lose the ability to post comments.


--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
deletion would create an incentive for abuse (2.63 / 11) (#95)
by Mindcrym on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 04:15:12 AM EST

Just think of having the power to delete every single post, story, diary, or vote of that K5 user that you just can't stand. I think that if people knew there was a magic deletion button there would be a much larger incentive for people to crack their nemesis' account just to push that button. Sounds fun to me anyway...

-Mindcrym

Content Deletion is a Bad Idea (2.57 / 7) (#97)
by templurkeracct on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 04:42:09 AM EST

This is coming from someone who's posted his real name, address, and phone number to this site. K5 is enough of a troll-fest already. Adding another "game" aspect to this site will only make it worse. A Kuron should post to K5 with the knowledge that what they write is as permanent as anything else on the net.

If a person doesn't want K5 to be able to connect the things they write to them all they have to do is get an anonymous proxy and create a new account.
I was the original drduck back before mod-bombing was cool.

Security issues? (2.95 / 24) (#98)
by skyknight on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 04:42:10 AM EST

K5 really is not all that secure with how it manages user logins and passwords. Yes, you can specify a login over https and that protects your password, but after that the site does everything it can with hyperlinks to get you back over to http. At that point, your authentication cookie is broadcast in the clear. This allows for user impersonation.

All in all, hijacking someone's account isn't that interesting, as the most you can do is post some bogus stuff which could ostensibly be deleted at a later point when the legit user caught on and notified a site admin. What happens, though, if an attacker hijacks an account and then issues a command to purge all data from the user's account? This could cause serious problems both from an administrative and computational perspective.

First of all, the delete operation on the database is apt to be expensive on the database, as it has to go and whack a whole bunch of data. An admin could undo a wrongful deletion, but that too would be a lot of work, and it could easily just happen again.

The whole system is only as secure as the connection between your computer and K5 is secure from malicious users rewriting packets. Depending on your setup, this may or may not be a reasonable assumption.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
What About Replies Quoting Deleted Posts? (2.57 / 7) (#100)
by freestylefiend on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 05:49:13 AM EST

What if someone gives out information that they have good reason to want to keep concealed and my reply includes that information to indicate to what I am responding? Should they be allowed to alter my post? I don't think that there should be another option to deal with this, but I do think that it is a mistake to think that a policy other than no deletion will be able to cover all cases well.

However, I think that there are too many options here and I would like to see another vote with fewer options (not more). I like 1 (especially), 5 and 6, but I would like another opportunity to vote (unless an option ends this vote with half or more of the votes).

Possible additional option? (2.66 / 9) (#101)
by TonyPaulDay on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 05:54:57 AM EST

Allow a user to make his content only visible to other users.... this should at least remove the googleability factor - which I guess is a major worry to some of the people wanting content removed.

In terms of removing content if someone thinks what they have posted could impact them adversly then I would side with the user, though I would think the user should at least give fair reason as to why they need (rather than want) it removed. Placeholders sounds like a fair enough compromise to not loosing other peoples input (though obviously out of context replys wont always make any sense!)

Top level Stories - I think this should require a user to request each story they want removed individually, I don't think any user should have so many that it is too daunting a task, and they should have to at least justify why they think each is detrimental to them.

Why Deletion is a Good Thing (2.50 / 10) (#104)
by enfilade on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:49:36 AM EST

In real life you are not held accountable for silly things you may have said months ago in a casual situation amongst friends. Why should the Kuro5hin be any different?

Kuro5hin can be a place where everyone is anonymous and hidden, too afraid to post any personal details for fear of it later being held against them. Or it can be a place where people can discuss real things that genuinely matter to them like they would amongst mates at the local pub.

In real life casual discussions, people don't tape or otherwise record the things that you say. So your RL "comments" are stored in a rather volatile medium - human memory. Human memory is not very precise and it doesn't last long for mundane things like comments.

The main point I want to make is that there should be a time limit. It's no good allowing people to delete things they said yesterday. That will lead to even more abuse. But it's no good keeping things in perpetuity. Decide on a certain time frame (I like 6 months) and then allow people to delete their comments and diaries that are more than 6 months old. In fact I'd like to be able to check an option on my account to say that everything I wrote would be deleted after 6 months. Automatically.

I don't see why preserving month-old discussions is important. How many people trawl the archives reading diaries from months or years ago? Stories are more important to protect than diaries, but even then, most of the "meat" is in the story body, not the discussions. If the comment had any value, it is the right of the comment writer to retract it.

And if somebody says something stupid, 6 months should be more than enough time for them to suffer the deserved amount of ignominy.

But most importantly, rusty should warn people before they post that Kuro5hin has an perpetual database that anyone (even people without accounts) can access on a per-user basis. This is a very different system from most other forums, such as Slashdot, where it's possible to search for old discussions but not for old comments by a particular user. The power of the K5 database is also dangerous and easily abused by stalkers - you should make this crystal clear to new users so they act with proper caution.  


Kuro5hin is not a casual conversation. (2.00 / 12) (#108)
by pwhysall on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 07:35:03 AM EST

It's an on-line publishing system.

Really, if people need to have it spelt out to them that, barring all but a few highly specialised circumstances, their words here are going to stay here, then I would suggest that they'd be better off NOT publishing here.
--
Peter
K5 Editors
I'm going to wager that the story keeps getting dumped because it is a steaming pile of badly formatted fool-meme.
CheeseBurgerBrown
[ Parent ]

Wrong (2.42 / 7) (#109)
by enfilade on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 08:13:38 AM EST

The mission statement, from the FAQ:
Kuro5hin.org is a collaborative site about technology and culture, both separately and in their interactions.

Kuro5hin.org is a community of people who like to think. This is a site for people who want to discuss the world they live in. It's a site for people who are on the ground in the modern world, and who sometimes look around and wonder what they have wrought.


The highlighting is mine. Note the language: collaboration, community, discussion. Nowhere do I see anything about Kuro5hin being limited to an "online publishing system". Obviously the priority is discussion and collaboration rather than simple publishing.

And if you look at most stories the facts will bear me out. People discuss things casually, contributing to the original story with their own thoughts, experience and knowledge. In fact, a large part of the value of reading Kuro5hin is to read other's responses and to contribute yourself.

BTW, are you really an editor or HIBT?

[ Parent ]

bingo - right to the point - agreed (nt) (none / 1) (#131)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:59:19 AM EST



[ Parent ]
No YHNBT, he really is an editor! (none / 1) (#191)
by rmg on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:47:06 PM EST

Can you believe it? I really don't know how pwhysall got to be an editor, but often when you see his editorial decisions, you really have to wonder if you've been trolled. He's just another one of those people that make Kuro5hin.org the wacky place it is.

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

Very well said (none / 2) (#137)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:14:25 AM EST

I also thought it would be nice, if a user could just click on an option for each comment he makes to die automatically after a certain time frame.

K5's database is exactly what you call it, a feast for people to "check out someone's comments" for decades and years backwards.

Can you imagine asking your Presidential candidate ten years from now: "Why, Mr. Candidate, did you say ten years ago on K5 xyz?"

I just imagine the answer: "You know, I really didn't say it, I just thought it. I think a lot of crap very often and then change my mind about it" ... like I did smoke, but didn't inhale ...

Those archives are more dangerous than the STASI archives or any traditional archives that had to be collected "by hand". It can destroy people's lives thirty years later in ways that they incite again a lot of trouble and hate over comments that were made decades ago.

Most threads reveal thought processes of users written as spontaneously as they are thought.

Only very evil and very professional people can use this fact for exploitation and can control their own writings in ways to manipulate other commentators (trolls et al.) successfully. One should NOT give them the opportunity to do.

[ Parent ]

No deletion is not accountability.. (none / 1) (#150)
by bearclaw on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:52:38 AM EST

>In real life you are not held accountable for silly
>things you may have said months ago in a casual
>situation amongst friends. Why should the Kuro5hin
>be any different?

I don't look at a no-deletion policy as enforcing accountability (the users will do that with or without a deletion feature), I look at it as enforcing history.

If you said something, you said it.  Period.  You can't go back in time and not say it.  And that's what this would do/allow.

-- bearclaw
[ Parent ]

Enforcing history (none / 1) (#195)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:32:03 PM EST

is a very dangerous thing. You prevent people from correcting their own mistakes, give them the opportunity to incite wars of words and hate for decades to come and never end a conflict.

You also go against human nature. I can't imagine that the fact the grass grows over everything, if you leave it alone, has not a very useful reason helping humankind to survive. Each generation anyway repeats the "mistakes" of the previous generations.

What you support with your history enforcement policy is that they people continue to quarrel about the mistakes of their anchestors endlessly. You end up to heat up more conflicts with "history enforcing policies" than without.

I also think that the human memory is pretty  bad for a very good and important reason. Your conscience must forget things in order to bear life as it is. If we can't forget, if things wouldn't decay, we would all get crazy and kill each other constantly. There is a reason why we have the ability to forget, to forgive and to be humane.

You ask for immortality of individual's private history of thoughts - that is very, very bad and I consider the effort to impose such a policy on people a violation of their human dignity.

If I said something, I said something and it will be forgotten. If I say soemthing and everyword would be recorded against my will and archived, you would have a civil war instantly, because it abuses my personal human dignity and people would fight it to their death. I am sure you would immediately change your mind about this history enforcement policy of yours, if all comments online would not be hidden behind a nick, but would clearly and unmistakenly been traceable and searchable to your real life persona.

If you want to enforce history, I think you should work for any kind of big brother secret service and record ALL the suspicious things your neighbors are doing and saying in real terms.

To archive every word uttered online, just because the technical tools are there (or even worse, we can't control the technology with our own man-made tools to prevent these archives from being created against our wills), doesn't give you the right to enforce the technology on others against their wills as a matter of personal policy decision.

You still have the moral obligation to do everything you can to prevent the technology to impose their potential abusive powers on its users. It's a much too important issue to be left up to your personal liking or even to a majority vote. I support in a democracy a majority vote, but also the protection of individual human rights of the minority.

And no, the user will not be equally accountable with or without deletion features. That's most probably simply not true and without trying it out in an experiment, you can't prove it.

It is much more likely that people are much more accountable, if they see others live by example that clean up their own dirt and correct their own mistakes, if they see others trying to live up to their own selfconscious high standards.

If you have to measure your own dirt against the standards of self-imposed cleanliness of other people, you want to adapt to the higher standards and fit in and most probably would become a more self-conscious user yourself. Your accountability will most probably be higher.

There is really no reason, why people are so afraid to simply try it out and engage in a new experiment. If K5 goes down the drain because users can edit themselves, then this is worth knowing.

But you can't learn and can't understand and know why that would happen, if you don't try the experiment and see if it actually really would happen.

What would prevent rusty from trying it out? If the result would be that hordes of people wouldn't come back to K5 and post something, what would prevent rusty to go back to the old rules or another set of rules? What are people so afraid off? That they might look worse on a site that allows deletion options, if they abuse their liberties?

What's so bad about that?

Are you afraid to engage in an experiment just because you fear the outcome wouldn't support your prejudiced, expected outcomes and your thesis?

[ Parent ]

Are you serious? (none / 2) (#167)
by Rahaan on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:34:35 AM EST

In real life you are not held accountable for silly things you may have said months ago in a casual situation amongst friends. Why should the Kuro5hin be any different?
Who cares?  The site is not about proving other people wrong and holding them to their very word even though it was a drunken post at 4am on a subject they have no idea about, it's about discussion.  Part of the beauty of this site is not just the huge database of useful information, links, and stories, it's seeing the discussion of those topics and, theoretically, turning it into a learning experience by seeing the faults of others' [or your own] logic and finding out where and what went wrong.  The psychology of the discussions is as interesting as the information presented in the discussions themselves.  K5 allows you to go back and see the mindset of people talking about things as they happen, which is not even close to some fucking messageboard where you go back and see posts which are totally blank except for
[this commented has been edited by jjayson. 12.3.03 18:25:56 EST]

If you go into the archives and read stories found there, you have to read them in the context in which they were written.  To allow the deletion of comments which were 'silly' or 'casual' would totally ruin the discussion found in that story.  The discussion which is the entire point of this site.  It would totally disrupt the continuity of the timeline of the archived stories, turning them into objects of very, very little value.


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]

This is real life n/t (none / 0) (#258)
by dipierro on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 11:19:53 AM EST



[ Parent ]
The instant someone tries to use this (2.50 / 4) (#105)
by omghax on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 07:25:47 AM EST

Kuro5hin will go down; thusly the more mischievous will have found new uses for their many alt accounts

I put the "LOL" in phiLOLigcal leadership - vote for OMGHAX for CMF president!
I vote randomizing of names (2.62 / 8) (#110)
by The Terrorists on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 08:28:23 AM EST

and only selective, admin'd deletion on a case by case basis otherwise. It at least stops Google.

Watch your mouth, pigfucker. -- Rusty Foster

There needs to be a limit (brainstorming) (2.25 / 8) (#112)
by jayhawk88 on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 08:35:33 AM EST

I'm in favor of allowing users to delete diaries/comments (but not stories) with placeholders, but there needs to be a limit, otherwise it would be abused. You don't want someone posting 50 comments/diaries an hour throughout the site, then going back and deleting them all.

Perhaps a montly or yearly limit on the number of comments and diaries that can be deleted? A low number, say...5? I don't know. The idea being that if you need to delete more than 5 of your comments a year for legitimate reasons, perhaps you need to rethink how/why you are posting. Instances when a user needs to mass-delete old comments for legitimate reasons (webwench) still need to run though admin approval.

Or what about getting trusted users involved somehow? Allow users to mark their own comments/diaries for deletion, then put it to trusted users if it is allowed or not. Probably not the best idea, given how easy it is to be trusted, and sort of defeats the purpose of deleting the material anyway by advertising it. Something to consider.

Should the ability to delete be made a pay-for feature?

Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? -- John Ashcroft
What ? Five comments per year? (none / 2) (#129)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:50:06 AM EST

I agree on limiting the number of diaries you can write per day (how about one?), I would not agree on limiting the number of comments you can make to an article or diary, nor would I agree to limit the number of comments one would be allowed to delete with placeholder.

I am not sure, may be the placeholder could still reveal the user's name. If I were to see that "big egomaniac" posted 20 comments in a thread and a minutes later would delete all 20 comments with a placeholder, I might want to know who played unfairly posting on purpose much crap just to delete it seconds thereafter.

Other users might just decide to never feed "big egomaniac" thereafter, because they know he doesn't behave, which might just help to teach "big egomaniac" a lesson and force him to reappear as a much kinder and gentler "little egomaniac", who then might just play a little nicer with his peers.

Just a thought.

[ Parent ]

What about this? (2.75 / 4) (#134)
by jayhawk88 on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:08:46 AM EST

Something I was tossing around in my head on the way to work:

Users are not allowed to delete submitted stories, nor delete comments in stories, nor delete comments they make in other people diaries, for any reason. Stories and others diaries are considered public domain, live with the consequences of your actions.

Users do, however, have complete control over their diaries. They can delete diary entries, delete their comments from their own diaries, and maybe have the power to delete comments others make in their diaries (this last one being the biggie, of course, more below). "This is your diary" after all, so it makes sense that one would have some control over it. Rusty said somewhere else that this would take a lot longer to code, but I think it would be worth it.

About being able to delete others comments from your diary: I personally would be in favor of this. If you're Joe User and you post in Jack Users diary, and Jack deletes your comment for petty or vindictive reasons, well of course you're pissed off, but what harm is really done? You can always post a reply diary berating Jack for being an asshole, then delete his comments when he comes to defend himself or whatever. And in the future you will just be less likely to post in Jack's diary.

Possible problem: somebody gets a wild hair and just keeps posting and posting in your diary, forcing you to delete hundreds of posts. Perhaps can be solved with a "ban" feature, or admin intervention if the problem escalates beyond your ability to control.

Now, if this idea is unacceptable for any reason, you could always get trusted users involved. Joe User could take any comments in his diary he doesn't like and Mark them for deletion, at which point it shows up in a Q sort of like 0'd comments do now. Trusted users could then vote on whether the comment should really be deleted or not.

Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? -- John Ashcroft
[ Parent ]
Well, that's the timid solution, but a step in the (none / 1) (#147)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:45:52 AM EST

right direction.

I am reluctant to allow anyone to delete other people's comments, even in my own diary space. I think I can stop an abusive commentator in my diary space by just withdrawing my comments or the diary itself.

The remedy you suggest to defend yourself against vindicating deletion by others of your own comments  is to write other diaries complaining about someone having been an idiot. Well, I am not interested in reading such diaries either. So, I don't think your idea is good.

I think the whole trusted user idea is worthless and doesn't work at all online, it's already difficult enought to trust someone in real life and you want me to trust a nick? No way.

[ Parent ]

IT depends (2.50 / 6) (#113)
by minerboy on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 08:37:50 AM EST

on what you want K5 to be - if it is trying to be collaborative media, then the comments on a story should not be deleted - since this is what makes an article "collaborative". Take away(or edit), comments and you confuse what is often the best part of an article.

Unfortunately, the media here is rarely collaborative. If you want just another discussion site - basically a web based news group which is mostly what we get here, lately at least, Then delete away - and you become blogspot

Actually, I would like to see more colaborative tools instead, If users could form groups that could edit stories together. Also, I would like to see IP checking on the ratings, so that no two story or comment ratings could come from the same IP



IP checks suck (none / 2) (#187)
by jester69 on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:06:47 PM EST

Yeah, you have only one PC per IP, but what about the corporate networks where sometimes 1000+ PC's hide behind a single IP? If 10 or even 2 of those people want to comment on the same story, why not?

take care,

Jester
Its a lemming thing, Jeep owners would understand.
[ Parent ]

(0); That's anti-family! (none / 2) (#188)
by aphasia on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:16:18 PM EST

Seriously, though; we have husband-wife and boyfriend-girlfriend pairs that post here using different accounts. In addition to the pretty-massive issue of corporate users sharing one IP address, the effect I mention could decimate female k5 posters even further than has already occurred. And we don't want that, now, do we?

"You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
[ Parent ]

Alternative suggestion (1.23 / 13) (#114)
by My Other Account Is A Hulver on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 08:54:46 AM EST

Put together a CMF working committee to look at this issue in detail.  Don't forget to have another round of fund raising first, this is too important an issue to remain unresolved.

I believe drduck is a genuine account, and I don't delete him because I'm a hypocrite. - rusty
Deletion...Sure (2.63 / 19) (#115)
by greyrat on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 08:59:49 AM EST

And in addition I want to be able to:
  • Tell my creditors I was only kidding.
  • Return my kids.
  • ...and take back all the sex I ever had with my ex.
  • Erase everything I ever said to any love interest I've ever had.
  • Unbuy the 486 66Mz PC with a VESA bus motherboard I got in 1995.
  • Get all those tunes out of my head that I downloaded for free off the 'Net.
  • Completely uninstall Mozilla -- and AOL.
  • Cleanly upgrade from Windows 98 to Windows 2000.
  • Be unbaptized.
  • Drop my cable subscription -- oh wait, I can do that.
</sarcasm> (just in case)

~ ~ ~
Did I actually read the article? No. No I didn't.
"Watch out for me nobbystyles, Gromit!"

Another option: vote on each deletion (2.20 / 5) (#116)
by nowan on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 08:59:57 AM EST

How about requiring a story explaining the reason for the deletion to make it out of the submission queue? Of course, I lean toward the "sucks to be you" response to folks who want to delete their stuff. But with this, there'd still be the option to anonymize your stuff, and if there's a damned good reason, it can be deleted.

To make it work, though, you'd need to place a limit on how often an account could submit such a request.

What the fuck (2.65 / 20) (#117)
by Michael Moore on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:00:33 AM EST

I can't believe half you retards talking about "limiting the number of times" people can delete their comments. For fucks sake, if a person decides to use any deletion feature, that account should be dead and buried forever. That's not to say I even support deletion--I don't. But it doesn't take a fucking genius to see that the ability to selectively delete content you've created or to delete content and keep the account alive is the most retarded idea ever.

The fact is, when you delete shit you've made, it impacts every other person who commented on that, referred to it, talked about it, etc. If you think you're going to regret doing something, either don't fucking do it, or do it and have enough balls to live with the consequences. This deletion idea is something that could tear apart the integrity of huges amounts of the site, leading to archives and old stories being practically useless thanks to the mangled shit deletion would leave behind. I honestly cannot understand the motivations of anyone who would support such an idiotic idea.

And goddamnit, if people can "delete" shit (which I honestly hope is never allowed to happen), that account should DIE and DIE FOREVER. If you're still posting here, live with the fucking history you've created for yourself.

Oh and finally, why the fuck do you pro-deletion freaks actually want to delete your previous comments/diaries/whatever at the expense of everyone else? What's your motivation at the hypothetical point where you decide "I want to erase everything I've ever posted on K5"? And bullshit reasons that could only possibly have been created by your own idiocy don't count.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael

You know, why don't you ask the other way around (1.83 / 6) (#140)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:28:27 AM EST

Instead of saying, if people can "delete" shit that account should DIE and DIE FOREVER, why not ask,  if people don't clean up and "delete" their own shit the account should DIE and DIE FOREVER?

Not that I would support this alternative, but I absolutely have no idea, why you think you are the person to decide to give the death penalty to users, who want to clean up their own shit?

You are way off in your logic IMO.

And how come that the deletion of my own comments or diaries is on the expense on everyone else? First, nobody is going through the tedious work to delete individually hundreds if not thousands of comments they made in the past.

Why do you feel you are so badly effected? Because your comment to a deleted comment  becomes irrelevant? Most probably that would only happen, if your comment actually WAS irrelevant as well. Nobody is going to delete a good discussion, because everybody has gone through the work of writing out a good valid thought and doesn't like to do that in vain. If I decide to delete my comment I think I have come to the conclusion that my comment/reaction/thought was actually not worth to be typed in. Chances are that your reaction to my crappy comment also doesn't stand a chance to be very meaningful.

Chances are that if I delete my own shit, your shit will also become much more clearly visible as shit. There is a point, where people get allergic against shit and actually might be grateful, if everybody cleans up after himself.

I am very sure that will be the case in the diary section and people will be much more willing to really give it a good try to comment in meaningful ways to real articles. It should just improve the quality level over all.

[ Parent ]

mami (2.14 / 7) (#144)
by Michael Moore on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:36:21 AM EST

Your grasp of deleter psychology is extremely limited. People who want to 'delete' almost always do it for fundamentally moronic reasons of 'revenge', and to allow the site to become subject to this is to damage the majority at the expense of a few morons going nutty because they've decided they hate everything.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
Well, if they delete for revenge (1.50 / 4) (#148)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:51:24 AM EST

they basically hurt themselves more than others. You are saying that people want revenge against themselves or delete their own self-hatred?  

And why not accept to make moronic reasons visible as such. At least it's clear who is a moron and who is not. I like transparency, especially if it comes to reveal morons.

I don't know what deleter psychology is and have no time to search for it.

[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0) (#367)
by Safety Cap on Mon Dec 08, 2003 at 05:23:36 PM EST

Please explain how if someone "deletes for revenge," they hurt themselves more than others.

[ Parent ]
Bingo. (2.25 / 3) (#173)
by LukeyBoy on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:39:44 AM EST

I agree 100%, and you saved me writing much of the same content.

Personally, I long ago accepted the permanence of anything at all that I write on the Internet, whether it be in a forum, my blog, k5, etc.

I can of course see the rationale behind deleting one or two that might open you up to legal hassles and so on, but if this is passed I see all the wonderful archives of K5 turning into a wasteland of "There was a comment here."

[ Parent ]

I'm going to take my toys and go home! :P (none / 1) (#366)
by Safety Cap on Mon Dec 08, 2003 at 05:21:27 PM EST

The way I look at it, those who vote to remove their comments do it because they want one last backslap on the community. That is one of the problems with Wiki; when some 'tard gets his/her panties in a twist, out comes the red pen and that idiot removes all his/her "contributions" to the Wiki.

Wah wah.

The idea of ownership of your comments ends when you post them. Just as you don't own the letter to the editor you wrote, you don't get to remove your card from the Kuro deck.

Perhaps the answer here is a slight change in licensing ("All posts become property of Kuro"), or a nice, fat, blinking 'tard reminder on every Post Comment box: "Whatever you post here will be saved forever. Think before you Post.

The only two exceptions to saving things forever is 1) if Rusty runs out of disk space, or 2) if the post violates some US law.

[ Parent ]

Your poll is unscientific and other points... (2.69 / 13) (#118)
by yicky yacky on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:08:14 AM EST

It's not balanced to have a poll which includes nine different deletion options and one 'do not delete' option. This is just melding two separate questions into one and it drastically affects the result.

The first question is "Should users have the facility for deleting their contribution history upon the close of an account?". This requires a simple yes / no answer. If the majority choose 'yes', then it's fair to go into all the possible options.

Doing what you're doing, the 'yes' votes are split across numerous options while the 'no' votes are concentrated on just one. It's perfectly designed at present to result in an overwhelming 'No' majority, which is incidentally the option I'm leaning towards, so I don't consider it a problem, but others may well complain (and be justified in doing so).

Also, if you add the facility to delete comments, it may well lead to the practise of people 'whole quoting' other posts so as to make their comments not seem ridiculous should the seed post be deleted. This in turn could lead to a mailing list type of paradigm - with excessive quoting being rampant (and accompanying arguments as to the correct way to quote). Thought that eventuality should be considered, however unlikely...




yicky yacky
**************
'The actual reasonable Britons are correct, you're being a cock.' - Hide The Hamster.
No (2.40 / 5) (#119)
by Michael Moore on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:11:39 AM EST

Your hypothetical poll is even more rigged, because it limits people into saying Yes/No to a "generic" deletion before they even know what their options are when the next poll comes around. The fact that "no deletion" is getting so many votes is if anything an indication that despite the variety of alternatives most people are unwilling to accept ANY of them. The current poll allows people to see the options and vote No to all of them if they don't have a preference. Considering this and the overwhelming majority the 'least powerful' deletions have over all other types, it seems clear that K5 is heavily against deletion.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
No (none / 3) (#122)
by yicky yacky on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:29:54 AM EST

You'd only be correct if the second poll contained no "I don't agree with any of these" option, which is fair as a stop-check mechanism. Also; you are assuming that the possible options in the case of a yes vote aren't outlined first. Don't do that: It might make you look stupid.

At the moment, 'No deletion' is miles out in front in terms of the poll but has fewer votes than all the yes's pooled together. Those two facts are pretty hard to reconcile into a coherent mandate one way or the other (I'm actually trying to save rusty some grief).




yicky yacky
**************
'The actual reasonable Britons are correct, you're being a cock.' - Hide The Hamster.
[ Parent ]
I think that sort of polling (none / 2) (#124)
by Michael Moore on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:40:00 AM EST

is extremely manipulative. Nobody's going to choose that option because it gives them the least say in what action will take place, they're far more likely to concede a "low level" deletion like diary deletion if confronted with a poll that doesn't give them the ability to say "No".

Additionally your polling method gives hopes to people with insane ideas about how to implement the "perfect deletion system" or which deletion method is sure to win. They'll vote yes because they think some crazy idea of theirs is just great, or knowing that "surely diary deletion" will win part 2. Then they'll be stuck with comment deletion if it wins, and they'd quite probably have rather had NO deletion than comment deletion, but in the first poll they were forced to commit themselves to whichever particular method wins in the end, even if they didn't support it at all.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]

Er (2.50 / 4) (#126)
by Michael Moore on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:42:57 AM EST

Maybe my point was a bit avague in the second paragraph. My point is that people aren't fundamentall "for" or "against" deletion, especially people who would vote "Yes" in a binary poll. Rather, they are for a partiular type of deletion, and should not necessarily be counted as voting for a method they do NOT support, simply because it happened to be on the same side of the original binary poll.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
That's true... (none / 2) (#130)
by yicky yacky on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:56:18 AM EST

...but that really is the flip-side of the same coin I was raising in my original point. By including an absolute 'No' you are taking a group of people who are fundamentally against it, and matching them against a group of people who have different ideas of what they'd find acceptable or not.

I suppose what I have in mind is something like: outlining the 'yes' options first; then (optionally) having a debate and amending them as necessary; then having the 'yes / no' vote with people able to see clearly the options they'd be allowed to vote on if 'yes' was successful (therefore being completely free to say 'no' if they didn't like them); then only voting on the options if the vote was not 'no'.

Long-winded? yes, but statistically fairer.




yicky yacky
**************
'The actual reasonable Britons are correct, you're being a cock.' - Hide The Hamster.
[ Parent ]
The problem is still there (2.60 / 5) (#132)
by Michael Moore on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:05:43 AM EST

in the poll with no "No".

Consider this hyponethical spread:

Want deletion?
Yes - 55%
No - 45%

Then, since yes won:

Diary only - 30%
Comment and diary - 50%
Comment and diary and story - 20%

In this situation "comment and diary" would win, but when you look at the percentages relative to the number of people who want no deletion, it looks like this (last 3 all add up to 55%):

None 45% - Diary 16.5% - Comment 27.5% - All 11%

Even though comment "won", only 38.5% of voters wanted Comment or more. 61.5% of voters wanted Diary or less. Clearly, at an absolute minimum, diary should have won. But because people are forced to choose a binary option and commit to Yes/No before an actual system can be implemented, you get a system the the majority of K5ers think is too harsh.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]

But (2.25 / 4) (#139)
by yicky yacky on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:24:39 AM EST

if the 'community' has voted that the 'community' wishes to have some sort of deletion facility, the second vote is not "50% of the original 55% yes vote" (i.e. 27.5% of the total), but "50% of the total 100%" as it is a separate community poll althogether.

It's completely disingenuous to assume that those who voted 'No' would simply cease participation there. The majority of original 'no'-voters would be more likely to adopt a policy of "Seeing as we're having one, I'll pick the one I like best" as opposed to abstaining altogether. For this reason it would probably be impractical to have a 'none of the above' option in the second round (as we'd end up in exactly the situation we are now), but provided all the second round options are visible first this is still eminently more fair.

If the community does not want a deletion facility it will be rejected during the 'yes / no' round, before even getting to the 'which' round.

This, after all, is the way most actual democracies are run.




yicky yacky
**************
'The actual reasonable Britons are correct, you're being a cock.' - Hide The Hamster.
[ Parent ]
Assuming people can re-vote (2.25 / 4) (#143)
by Michael Moore on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:32:38 AM EST

I'm willing to bet 95% of people who voted "No" would vote the least powerful option in the poll, creating what is an almost invincible bias if the original scores were close (and with the current 45% opposition that seems very likely).

In that case it simply becomes a matter of how weak the weakest option in poll 2 is. If poll 2 has an option like "only diaries can be deleted with the permission of rusty and a 67% majority of users", or something just as unpowerful, that option will get 40% of the vote immediately from the "No" voters, almost guaranteeing it victory when the other 60% is split between 8 other options or whatever. And who decides how weak the weakest option in poll 2 is? Becuase chances are, it will win.

Personally I find this option very appealing if there is a ridiculously underpowered choice in the second poll, because it's an almost assured victory to "No" voters.

Anyway, like I said, splitting the polls is just as potentially unfair as combining them, if not more so.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]

I disagree. (2.50 / 3) (#146)
by yicky yacky on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:45:13 AM EST

I think this is where we differ.

Personally, my favourite option (as I suspect is yours) is 'No Deletions'. It's fundamentalist, it's clean and damn easy to maintain. If you're not prepared to stand by what you spew on the web, you shouldn't say it, right?

But, if I knew there was definitely going to be one, I'd agree with rusty's choice, simply because, once you have the option for deletion, it makes the most sense. I just don't buy that all the no-ists would automatically vote for the weakest option.

I can't help but feel, though, that a number of people are voting 'no deletions' just hoping to annoy a certain "self-styled supply-side economist, with tolerance issues".


yicky yacky
**************
'The actual reasonable Britons are correct, you're being a cock.' - Hide The Hamster.
[ Parent ]

I don't know (2.40 / 5) (#149)
by Michael Moore on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:52:06 AM EST

The ghetto is big, but it's hardly a majority vote.

Frankly I'm surprised to see rusty is somewhat deletion-friendly, I'd have expected the opposite. I guess he's the one who has to deal with it, so in that sense he might want to get something more automated happening, but then again I'd expect him to care about K5's archival integrity a lot more than most people too. That's probably my biggest issue with it.

Frankly though, I think a lot of people are voting "Yes" when they really probably mean something more like "I don't see the harm..." or "Why not?", with little understanding of how much this whole thing could potentially be used/abused. I guess that's democracy for you though.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]

Pragmatic administration, I think. (2.25 / 4) (#155)
by yicky yacky on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:04:20 AM EST

If you say 'No deletion at all', does that really stop people asking nagging-like-hell? Somehow I doubt it. That's practically the system we've got now, and he gets asked a lot, I think. Once in a blue moon there may actually be a valid reason to do it, too.

This way, it's not 'his problem' or decision: folk can decide for themselves. I wouldn't mind betting that the nagging won't cease though. It'll be more along the lines of "I-didn't-mean-to-do-it-but-I-did. Can I have it back please?".


yicky yacky
**************
'The actual reasonable Britons are correct, you're being a cock.' - Hide The Hamster.
[ Parent ]

That's why I support objective criteria (2.25 / 4) (#160)
by sab39 on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:22:16 AM EST

If you say "no deletion at all", then people will ask because they think they deserve a "special exception" for whatever reason.

If you say "anyone can delete and this is how it works", you get the opposite problem - people who think they merit a "special exception" to get their stuff back.

If instead you define exactly what the criteria are, and allow public debate as to whether a particular deletion meets the criteria, it's no longer "rusty's problem", but simply a matter of checking off items on a list and allowing the deletion if they're all met. And if someone thinks they merit a "special exception" they have the much harder task of explaining why the existing criteria are incorrect and should be amended.

Stuart.
--
"Forty-two" -- Deep Thought
"Quinze" -- Amélie

[ Parent ]

The *only* problem with that (2.50 / 4) (#172)
by yicky yacky on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:38:57 AM EST

is that I can see (albeit incredibly rare) situations where having a debate on a given deletion would expose 'whomever' to a catch 22 situation: i.e. they might want something kept private, whereas having a prolonged, public debate on the subject has completely the opposite effect, rendering the deletion pointless and counterproductive.




yicky yacky
**************
'The actual reasonable Britons are correct, you're being a cock.' - Hide The Hamster.
[ Parent ]
See my comment titled "Amended proposal" (2.25 / 4) (#186)
by sab39 on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:55:19 PM EST

I addressed this issue by suggesting that the deletion should happen first, but be done in a reversible way, so that if the public debate leads to the decision being reversed, the deletion can be reversed too.

The private information doesn't have to be mentioned in the deletion debate - merely the existence of the private information.

Stuart.
--
"Forty-two" -- Deep Thought
"Quinze" -- Amélie

[ Parent ]

This is moot if a decent voting method is used (2.60 / 5) (#145)
by sab39 on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:39:43 AM EST

This problem only comes up because of the unjustifiable use of plurality voting in a vote with more than two options. Plurality voting can never work right when there are more than two options unless it's guaranteed that every voter has only one choice that is even slightly acceptable to them.

Using a sensible voting method like Approval or Concordet[1] would allow you to present as many choices as you wanted, with as much overlap as you wanted, and still be assured that you were getting the best possible representation of the overall opinion of the voters.

Stuart.

[1] Just please don't use IRV/STV - it's just about the only voting system that behaves worse than plurality...
--
"Forty-two" -- Deep Thought
"Quinze" -- Amélie

[ Parent ]

Yes (2.60 / 5) (#152)
by rusty on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:01:58 AM EST

This would have made more sense as an approval vote. We don't have that yet, though (it's on the list) so we're stuck with this. I'm taking all the votes and comments into consideration, and I'll try my best to make it something most people can live with.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
i voted approval-like anyways (1.80 / 5) (#174)
by infinitera on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:40:59 AM EST

That's what multiple accounts are for.

[ Parent ]
We're not stuck with this... (none / 1) (#255)
by dipierro on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 11:15:56 AM EST

After the vote, if there is no majority, take the top two choices, and have a runoff.

[ Parent ]
Umm... (none / 2) (#159)
by Rahaan on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:20:24 AM EST

You'd only be correct if the second poll contained no "I don't agree with any of these" option, which is fair as a stop-check mechanism. Also; you are assuming that the possible options in the case of a yes vote aren't outlined first. Don't do that: It might make you look stupid.
How is that much different from the poll we have now?


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]
They are two, mutually exclusive, options (none / 2) (#161)
by yicky yacky on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:22:30 AM EST

Follow the thread down.


yicky yacky
**************
'The actual reasonable Britons are correct, you're being a cock.' - Hide The Hamster.
[ Parent ]
oops (2.25 / 4) (#170)
by Rahaan on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:36:09 AM EST

I misread the quote as saying the second poll would include an "I don't agree with any of these options".

can rusty please delete this and my previous comment in this thread plzthx


you know, jake.. i've noticed that, since the tacos started coming, the mail doesn't so much come as often, or even at all
[ Parent ]

No worries. (none / 2) (#171)
by yicky yacky on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:37:43 AM EST

I phrased it badly anyway. My fault.


yicky yacky
**************
'The actual reasonable Britons are correct, you're being a cock.' - Hide The Hamster.
[ Parent ]
Individual comment deletion. (2.66 / 9) (#120)
by crysflame on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:19:12 AM EST

I'd be happy to support comment deletion, as long as users were required to delete each comment, individually, with confirmation. This puts a severe penalty in place for removing content from the public archive, but matches perfectly how Google supports removing individual articles from the Deja archives. Over the course of a week, I removed more than a hundred articles from Deja; it was tedious, and I didn't mind at all; because some I felt like leaving, some I didn't. I feel that this would offer a much more effective solution than is currently implemented by LiveJournal, which allows a user to delete themselves from the site wholesale with three mouse clicks. It adds a strong barrier to emotional outbursts, while allowing dedicated individuals the freedom to take action as they wish.

I agree (2.25 / 4) (#125)
by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:41:29 AM EST

I just imagined I would have to go through all my comments and diaries and make individually the decision to delete them or to let them stand.

It's an enormous tedious task and chances are I wouldn't bother very much at all. But I would very much appreciate to have that right in the future.

I also don't understand what the fears are. Most people won't go through it and delete wholesale and most people won't go through the archives to make some thousand individual decisions about a possible deletion of each and every comment or diary they ever wrote.

[ Parent ]

Tempest in a teapot (2.69 / 13) (#128)
by Tex Bigballs on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:47:29 AM EST

Webwench asking for her stuff to be erased was no great loss to the site. It was mostly all-about-me tripe and losing it was no big loss to K5. I can definitely understand why rusty rubber stamped her request to be anonymized.

I feel a bit bad about jjayson because he actually did contribute, but if he wants to be deleted then it's not the end of the world.

To implement automatic controls for self-deletion, though, is absolutely absurd.

k5 should be like real life (2.86 / 15) (#136)
by circletimessquare on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:13:20 AM EST

if you said it in public, you can't roll back time and take it back if you said something stupid, no matter how much riducle you get for it

if you say something stupid, live up to it

if you say something stupid and later want to retract it, that says something about your character

god knows, i've made a complete fool of myself here, such as butting heads reptitively with complete trolls, and a few days later, looking over the shamefully stupid kindergarten-level thread, i felt like i just woke up sober the next day after a night of drunken sex and realized the chick snoring next to me is a gap-toothed horse-head beer-goggle wonder... AAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!

but you know what? i did it, i'm not going to try to erase it, i have to own up to what i said

it's not like k5 should be some sort of lesson in character-building... wait, no, that is what i am saying: k5 should be a lesson in character-building damnit! look at some of the dimwitted fucks who show up here! let's give them some of the good parenting they never had! who's your daddy! ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Speaking of saying stupid things... (none / 2) (#243)
by Russell Dovey on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 05:45:25 AM EST

I apologise for saying "fuck you" to you in a thread about a Canadian sent to Syria by the US.

I regret posting that post, but I don't want it deleted.

People who say stupid things on the Internet deserve to read them years later, so they can look at themselves and make sure they've improved.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

thank you ;-) (2.00 / 4) (#285)
by circletimessquare on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 08:35:06 PM EST

i don't mind some of the awful things people do and say, i mostly mind hypocrisy, such as those who scream "troll" at me here, and then behave like a troll

call me anything you want, i wasn't born yesterday, just don't be a hypocrit by saying something like this to me: "don't fucking swear" lol

i am a total troll, i admit it

neither you nor me are the type to engage in trollish behavior and then walk around accusing other people of being trolls... mostly be behaving exactly like a troll

i mean, wtf is that?!

you're not a hypocrit, so whatever someone says about you on this site or elsewhere, take solace in that fact

self-recognition of your own sins is a more self-empowering exercise i think than taking recognition of one's own virtues... i try to do it all the time, it's an important rhetorical skill in the very least

be your own best critic of yourself... why let others deface you? deface yourself first lol ;-P

i really think hypocrisy is a larger sin than most of the other bad behaviors that can be elicited on a newsgroup-like place like kuro5hin... unfortunately, i can name a few places where there are people who are completely blind to their own hypocrisy

always be humble- as soon as you lose your humility, you are doomed, but as long as you ground yourself in humility, you can almost never lose an argument due to your own hubris and arrogance, which is a terrible way to lose any argument


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Let us eat, drink, and be merry... (none / 1) (#307)
by Russell Dovey on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 09:57:03 AM EST

for tomorrow we troll! <clink>

Cheers.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Bad analogy (none / 2) (#301)
by godix on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 02:44:12 AM EST

i felt like i just woke up sober the next day after a night of drunken sex and realized the chick snoring next to me is a gap-toothed horse-head beer-goggle wonder... AAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!

This is K5, do you really think there are that many people here that can imagine waking up next to a chick, even a gap-toothed horse-head beer-google wonder?

Well, at least I shall die as I have lived. Completely surrounded by morons.
- Black Mage[ Parent ]
I voted for "new vote" and here's why (2.83 / 12) (#142)
by sab39 on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:29:37 AM EST

You describe your current process as "making a decision on a case by case basis", and then go on to say (rightly, IMHO) that "we need a policy". But all your options assume that there's absolutely no wiggle room for different things being allowed depending on circumstances.

My personal opinion is that the decision should still be made on a case by case basis by a human, but there should be some objective criteria by which that decision is to be made, and every such decision should be publically listed somewhere (maybe as a rusty or CaptainTenille diary entry - or even a special DELETINGUSERS account diary entry) along with discussion of why this particular case meets the criteria. Perhaps there should even be some time for discussion in the diary before the deletion actually takes effect.

I'm giving no opinion on what the objective criteria should be. I suggest you try to formulate a list of objective criteria which cover the way in which you made your previous decisions, and then post that list for discussion along with voting (btw, using plurality voting for making any actual decision with more than two answers is a heinous crime - please do some research on election methods before having another vote ;) )

For cases where deletion does end up being permitted by the objective criteria, you then have to make a decision of what form that deletion takes - that list would look very much like the original vote on this story, and in such a vote I would vote for "delete comments and diaries only, with placeholders".
--
"Forty-two" -- Deep Thought
"Quinze" -- Amélie

Amended proposal (2.50 / 4) (#165)
by sab39 on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:28:48 AM EST

Instead of allowing for discussion in the diary before the deletion takes effect, I propose instead doing the deletion first in a reversible manner, and then open up the discussion.

If a cause is found during discussion to reverse the decision, then the deletion gets undone.

A method like that would avoid a number of potential abuses, like noticing that someone's comment was to be deleted and immediately archiving it elsewhere where the poster can't get it removed. It would also cover cases where the deletion is time-sensitive.
--
"Forty-two" -- Deep Thought
"Quinze" -- Amélie

[ Parent ]

I voted no deletion but... (2.57 / 7) (#153)
by fritz the cat on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:02:42 AM EST

...with the provision that human editors can intervene in special cases (e.g., when leaving a comment/diary entry on K5 could cause someone to be arrested or something)

DOING NOTHING FUCKING SOMETHING

That is a built-in provision (2.75 / 4) (#162)
by rusty on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:22:32 AM EST

I'm not going to say the rule's the rule one thousand percent of the time no matter what. If "No deletion" wins, what we'll have is an up-front written policy that we don't delete stuff. If someone feels the need to appeal that, they'll have to give an admin specific links to individual items, and a good clear imminent-danger kind of reason why they have to be deleted.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
If I were you (none / 2) (#181)
by Danzig on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:15:46 PM EST

and the "no deletion" wins, I would not actually tell people that you will delete stuff in extreme circumstances. If it really matters enough, they will come to you.

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
On why it should not be allowed be default... (2.62 / 8) (#163)
by christianlavoie on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:25:38 AM EST

People will always say stupid things; it's human to do so, and will just always happen.

But it's normal that is happens, and hiding it won't prevent it from happening, quite the opposite. People will feel it's less likely to be reprimanded for saying stupid things, and thus will just say more such.

Keeping it for all to see, however, will cost a few people a bit more than they feel like (who knows who'll read what you posted on K5? Maybe your possible (now impossible) future boss will and will send you to hell because of it) -- but in the end, they'll learn not to do it again.

It's a basic question of responsability -- live up to what you did/said. Including the stupid parts.

----

Once that's said and done, always keep the possibility of human intervention. Maybe somebody's gonna post something here that could lead him/her into trouble with tyrannic governments? Maybe somebody's speech (hate speech, life threats, whatever) MUST be censored.

I say keep a strict policy; and let the admins intervene sometimes. No user deletion, please.


Maybe Computer Science ought to be taught in the school of Philosophy
   -- Christian Lavoie [modified from RS Barton]

No huge preference except (2.66 / 6) (#166)
by R343L on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:29:45 AM EST

  1. There must be placeholders, anonymous or not. Otherwise threads could get very bizarre.
  2. In no case can one user's choice to delete their stories/comments/diaries delete someone else's writing. I.e. diary deletion should leave other user's comments in place. If I post in a diary, I own my own comments, even if the diary is owned by someone else. A user who is deleting their stuff should have to ask others to delete (individual) comments that they think need to be deleted to remove all the embarassing/dangerous/etc. information about them. Or at least the comments by other users should remain visible to the author, but no one else.
Rachael

"Like cheese spread over too much cantelope, the people I spoke with liked their shoes." Ctrl-Alt-Del
One more thing - process for deletion (none / 2) (#175)
by R343L on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:42:01 AM EST

Any deletion should require a confirmation thru email (with some kind of temp key generated and all that) so that if someone hijacks someone's session they need to either (a) know their password (in order to change the email) or (b) be able to intercept their email as well. I.e. make the barrier of entry higher for malicious people to delete other people's comments/diaries/whatever.

I also think the delayed deletion mentioned by some other posters is a good idea.

Rachael
"Like cheese spread over too much cantelope, the people I spoke with liked their shoes." Ctrl-Alt-Del
[ Parent ]

Don't really know how to vote on this one (2.66 / 6) (#168)
by jester69 on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:35:49 AM EST

Even if its deleted from here, that doesn't mean it is neccecarily gone. For example, all of Webwench's diaries are still cached on google:

google search for "webwench's diary"

Who knows what could get socked away at http://www.archive.org/.

I guess though, that is (probably) a short term concern, and most likely people should be allowed to take their words back if they want. As long as the author retains copyright perhaps the issue could even be forced?

take care,

Jester
Its a lemming thing, Jeep owners would understand.

Google cache gone now... (none / 2) (#180)
by jester69 on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:04:04 PM EST

Strange.

8+ pages of cached diaries on google when I posted, now an hour later only a single entry.

Guess it was more temporary than I thought.

take care,

Jester
Its a lemming thing, Jeep owners would understand.
[ Parent ]

heh (none / 2) (#183)
by Run4YourLives on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:20:37 PM EST

maybe she called up google too.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]
Now that's influence. (n/t) (none / 2) (#184)
by aphasia on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:21:11 PM EST


"You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
[ Parent ]

Even stranger ... (none / 1) (#227)
by pyramid termite on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:20:09 PM EST

... I followed the link a minute ago and there were several there.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
no delete (2.60 / 5) (#176)
by feyr on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:51:55 AM EST

i voted no deletion. my prefered choice would be to rename the account to something anonymous.

possibly replacing user-defined words with similarly anonymous tags ( in the content of the comments/stories).

you would have to limit the number of words and do some heuristic to prevent someone from listing all words (effectively deleting their whole comment). or just human review (eg, making sure only names are listed).

that way you retain the bulk of the comments, while preserving anonymity

another brilliant idea. (2.90 / 11) (#182)
by Run4YourLives on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 12:19:36 PM EST

Rusty, come on now, your faith in your fellow Kurobots is astounding but misguided.

Allowing users to delete everything they ever posted is going to effectively destroy this site.

Why?

Because every time some "I live behind my computer" whiny loser gets a little pissed off about things not going their way (about whatever) they're going to use their new power of deletion to force the issue.

Unfortunatley, a lot of the big time users here (espscially the diary whores) are spoiled little brats. However unfortunate, the community is built on them as a core.

We lost a lot during this last migration of diary whores, and K5 is worse for it. We probably can't bring them back, but allowing them, as well as the next batch to come back and delete stories, diaries, and comment threads is ridiculous.

If we're going to have a democratic site (not that I think that's really important), we have to ensure the equality of each user. Allowing users that have contributed more to the site to negatively affect the experience of others, and the site in general, gives too much power to too few.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown

another brilliant lie (none / 1) (#314)
by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:09:24 PM EST

Because every time some "I live behind my computer" whiny loser gets a little pissed off about things not going their way (about whatever) they're going to use their new power of deletion to force the issue.

Unfortunatley, a lot of the big time users here (espscially the diary whores) are spoiled little brats. However unfortunate, the community is built on them as a core.

Because everytime some "I live behind my computer" superman doesn't get enough of comments from those "I live behind my computer" whiny losers, he gets a cold turkey and needs some more of his druggy to feel superior.

Superman must make sure that the whiners can't fight against his interests and agenda by using their deletion powers to fight superman's issues.

[ Parent ]

WTF (none / 1) (#359)
by Run4YourLives on Sun Dec 07, 2003 at 09:37:44 PM EST

are you talking about?

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]
ah, forget it, too complicated (none / 0) (#365)
by mami on Mon Dec 08, 2003 at 04:17:05 PM EST

to exlain to angy, compulsive alpha males ...

[ Parent ]
Misguided? Never. (2.75 / 4) (#322)
by rusty on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:30:27 PM EST

Allowing users to delete everything they ever posted is going to effectively destroy this site.

Looks like a clear majority agree with you. So my faith is astounding and once again borne out. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

No deletion. This is a public forum. (2.75 / 4) (#189)
by Imperfect on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:34:38 PM EST

You make a comment in a public forum, and it gets preserved. If I make a comment publicly to the press, it gets preserved. Grow up and deal with the fact that you cannot un-say what you have said.

You can apologise for it if you need to, but if you're enough of a moron to say something you will regret, you deserve the retribution that comes your way.

If you allow deletion of posts, even with placeholders, it screws up story browsing for all other users of this site. The many come before the one.

Not perfect, not quite.
you (none / 1) (#354)
by Nigga on Sun Dec 07, 2003 at 11:31:07 AM EST

"but if you're enough of a moron to say something you will regret, you deserve the retribution that comes your way."

What a regrettable thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself.

--------
The fuck happened to Nigga?
[ Parent ]

Nuke Me (none / 1) (#192)
by error 404 on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:49:10 PM EST

I voted "Comment and diary deletion, but not stories, with placeholders" but I meant it in a "nuke me" sense, not that the poster should be able to pick and choose.

As a normal thing, deletion is bad. But I can see situations where the things posted might cause embarrassment or trouble in offline life. Having to go with an all-or-nothing "nuke me" button would both allow quick cleanup and prevent people using deletion as an obnoxious rhetorical device.

The "Nuke Me" button, I think, should be protected by immediate password and an "are you sure?" page. Not sure about email verification - in the circumstances where it would be needed, email might be a problem. The result that I would advocate is that the user's profile is deleted, and all diaries and messages are replaced with "deleted by author" and all stories annonymized.

I can see where it might be abused - people might set up throwaway accounts - but I doubt it would be much fun since all one could leave behind is a bunch of "this message deleted by author" husks. The only real abuse I see as likely is people using it to stomp off in a huff.

Having said that, I think everyone realizes that a word written is potentialy permanent no matter what. It exists in caches all over the place, and could well have been saved by any number of people. I made a sarcastic offhand comment on a mailing list a few years back, somebody stripped the context, and it's been popping up on lists of inspirational quotes.


..................................
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
- Donovan

No Deletion (2.57 / 7) (#193)
by ewhac on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 01:54:03 PM EST

You might want to speak with administrators and/or long-time visitors of The WeLL. The WeLL's picospan conferencing software has a scribble command, which deletes a user's comment and replaces it with "[scribbled]".

While it was originally developed to serve a noble purpose -- to retract ill-considered statements -- in actual practice, it's most often used in a petulant manner. People get torqued off about someone or something, have an attack of I'm-taking-my-ball-and-going-home, and perform a mass-scribble of their comments. The result is a highly-disrupted and disjoint conference topic, which ends up annoying everyone else.

When considering this idea, I think it's important to remember two things:

  1. When participating in a conversation, you are not the sole participant. Other people are crucially involved in the process of constructing a train of thought. If you yank out your pieces, the whole thing falls apart, and everyone who helped to build it is affected, not just you.
  2. Scribbling/comment deletion is permanent. If you post in a fit of pique, you can either scribble it, or write a new post apologizing for/clarifying your previous post. OTOH, if you scribble in a fit of pique, that's it. It's gone, and you can't get it back.

I've seen the effects of mass-scribbles first-hand and, as such, I think it's an idea you want to avoid.

Schwab
---
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions. Priest, Internet Oracle.

Start deleting comments... (2.80 / 5) (#194)
by cestmoi on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:22:49 PM EST

...and I'll have to blockquote what I'm responding to on the chance that the post that I'm responding to might vanish and make the conversation nonsensical.

Course some would say any conversation I participate in is nonsensical.

Deletion only in emergencies (2.25 / 3) (#196)
by theboz on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 02:37:43 PM EST

If I were to post ucblockhead's home address and phone number, saying that he murdered babies for a living (which he doesn't) I would think that it's right to delete that post. It doesn't matter whether I asked to have it deleted, he asked to have it deleted, or an admin took it upon themselves (although this should be very rare.) In cases of, "WAAAH! I wanna haf my comments deweeted mommy becuz Jimmy won't wet me pway Wepubwican!" people should just STFU and requests to have all their stuff deleted should be ignored.

Stuff.

Runoff Election (2.71 / 7) (#197)
by riddermark on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:25:16 PM EST

Perhaps we could have a runoff vote after this vote is over if the leading choice doesn't garner at least 50% of the vote. This would be about as fully democratic as I can think of, albeit a little more of a pain in the ass for rusty. But if we're deciding K5 policy, it seems worth the extra headache.

Suggestion (none / 2) (#199)
by Rk on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:54:40 PM EST

When you know that something you say will be on record permanently you are likely to consider very carefully what you say. While some users may certainly consider this to be a good thing, it certainly hasn't deterred trolls on K5, since they are very difficult to trace by other K5 users, who don't have access to the user's IP address (I presume rusty does though, if not in the Scoop database then at least in the Apache logs) but it is very discouraging for people who might want to comment on a topic that is or may become sensitive.

Ask yourself: Would you want everything that you had ever said, even when drunk, tired, angry or depressed on permanent record for all the world to see at any time, anonymously, without you ever having the possibility of knowing that someone had accessed it?

Deletion should be only be for unusual cases, but that doesn't mean that users, especially those whose use real names, traceable (ie not just Hotmail...) e-mail addresses and so on, should be forced to have potentially compromising information displayed forever, especially if it was not clear at the time what significance posting that information could have. Would you want a potential future employer to read through all the K5 archives? What happens if you ever go to court - careless comments can and would be used against you, often taken out of context and perhaps without direct relevance to the matter at hand. Remember that a K5 user was visited by the US secret service for a comment on Kuro5hin. The fact that you did not mean something seriously does not stop someone from misinterpreting it; with or without malicious intent. Remember there is not always a way for law enforcement officers or HR personnel to know whether a comment is a joke or not and that such individuals may well decide to err on the side of caution.

For those reasons I suggest the following model:

  • Stories and comments in stories can only be deleted in serious cases. A case-by-case policy is necessary. The user may request anonymisation for all of his or her stories and comments - but NOT individually, to avoid abuse - which results in the user's details being removed permanently from the K5 database.

  • All comments made in diaries, as well as the user's diaries themselves, would be erased, or replaced by a notification that they had been removed, since diaries are less central to the purpose of K5 and more likely to contain compromising information.

  • All the ratings made be user are reversed upon erasure of his or her account. It is clearly not possible to also reverse votes on stories, since stories cannot and should not be unposted, but these votes would be anonymised.

  • Other K5 users can, for a short period after the said deletion, see the user's username (but no other details) and the date of the removal request. After a week or two, this notification would expire.

  • The user may request modification or comments and stories if they contain private information like a telephone number. In this case, the story or comment would stay intact and a placeholder notifies future readers of the nature of information removed (and possibly the reason why it was there in the first place, private information of this nature not having a place on a publicly accessible forum). Other changes to existing messages should not be allowed.

  • Once a user has removed their account, he or she should not be permitted to create any further accounts. This could prove very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce and therefore could be limited to just stopping users from creating another account with the same name and/or e-mail address...

  • Finally, rusty ought to consider putting some kind of a limitation on accounts with e-mail addresses at free e-mail sites like Hotmail. This would discourage trolls, since they wouldn't be able to create an unlimited number of accounts, albeit at the expense of blocking out users without an e-mail address at an ISP, place of employment/education or on their own server. It would also prove unpopular with tin hat brigade, perhaps rightly so... In any case it would be wiser to tread lightly here.

  • Also, it should be impossible to register accounts using a script. While I don't know of anyone doing this on K5, it is bound to happen sooner or later, and I see no legitimate reason why anyone should be able to automate registration of new accounts.

  • Regarding email accounts (3.00 / 4) (#202)
    by Michael Moore on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 05:54:06 PM EST

    Even though I have legitimate ISP email accounts, I want privacy, and as such I would never give them to K5. Frankly I don't think rusty needs or deserves my "real" email address logged in his database forever. Did you know that even if you change your email address in the user prefs page, the email you used to sign up is still permanently stored in the db? I don't see why people should be forced to tolerate that while giving rusty an email address that may very well contain their full legal name (in the case of work and ISP accounts).

    --
    "My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
    [ Parent ]
    because rusty is a trusted user, didn't you know? (none / 0) (#216)
    by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:50:46 PM EST

    Shame on you.

    [ Parent ]
    Fear versus history (none / 1) (#206)
    by Skwirl on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:05:55 PM EST

    Kowtowing and compromising the truth because of the fear of g-men and corporate lackies doesn't strike me as particularly helpful. We should be working towards the elimination of these institutions instead of working towards self-censorship, and I'd be more than happy to have this comment used against me in court.

    --
    "Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse
    [ Parent ]
    hipp hipp hooray ! (nt) (none / 0) (#215)
    by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:48:38 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    My personal preference... (none / 1) (#201)
    by joto on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 05:50:10 PM EST

    ...would be no deletion, with exceptions only in exceptional cases (i.e. what it is now). If that's too much work for Rusty, he should appoint somebody else to help him. But with the new option for closing accounts, deletions should be very rare anyway, and I think Rusty could handle the workload.

    come on Rusty... (2.66 / 6) (#204)
    by Skwirl on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 05:55:48 PM EST

    K5 has all but lost its core of regular writers and you're still wasting time fiddle faddling over whiners who don't want to be held responsible for their own actions?
    On the other hand, I don't like the idea that every stupid thing everyone ever said should be held forever for posterity, and I'm pretty uncomfortable being the guy who ultimately decides that that's how it shall be.
    Here, I'll make it easy for you. You're not that guy and you never were. Haven't you ever heard of the Google cache, private caches, hardcopy printouts, etc, etc... Everyone knows that anything you say on the Internet may be used against you for the rest of your life. It has nothing to do with Rusty or K5 or blabity blah blah. You take that risk everytime you commit a word to an instantly reproducable medium. People who cry about rewriting history deserve no special sympathy. I've had shit that I've written used against me by others and I've told them, "tough cookies, if you're so insecure that you feel the need to personally dig through all my archived writings and weed out things to use against me, that's your problem, not mine." Censorship is censorship whether it's self-requested or not and revisionist history strikes me as even more cowardly and despicable. The fact that the K5 archives have already been altered makes them tainted and practically worthless, much as the entire site is quickly becoming due to your make-everyone-happy pseudo-populist leadership.

    Oh, oh, I know! Let's go back to the library and rewrite the Cat in the Hat to include a Pepsi ad, so that it will match the movie! That will make Pepsi happy! Let's go to the microfiche archives and cut out all the run away slave bounties, then it'll be like slavery never existed! Let's burn all the archives from 1942 entirely, because the holocaust makes us sad!

    Stick to the basics, rusty. Censorship can only be justified when there is a clear and present danger and even then with great caution. You're savvy enough to know all this already, you're just too burned out from listening to all the whiners in your inbox. Let them fucking whine. You've got bigger fish to deal with here.

    --
    "Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself." -- Herman Hesse

    Our Internet in Heaven (1.50 / 4) (#214)
    by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:45:00 PM EST

    Our Internet which art in heaven
    hallowed be thy name.
    Thy kingdom come.
    Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.
    Give us this day our daily comment.
    And forgive us our thoughts, as we also forgive those of other's.
    And lead us not into temptation to troll, but deliver us from that evil.
    (Morning K5 prayer, modern spelling edition, ed. 1976)

    Don't mess with my God, rusty. - You risk your life to talk in front of the almighty. - Skwirl

    [ Parent ]

    Just apologise or retract (none / 1) (#205)
    by izogi on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 05:56:29 PM EST

    As many people already seem to be, I'm also of the opinion that if you're going to post something then you should be careful of what you say. If you say something stupid, then too bad. Honestly, a community like this would really benefit if people could just learn to apologise and admit mistakes instead of trying to hide them as if they didn't happen.

    I know at least one person who's very flambouyant about things he says online, and he's just as quick to try to rearrange history once he realises he's said something stupid or insulting so he can pretend it didn't happen, even though it's already affected everyone else. As far as everyone else is concerned, he's all the evidence that they have to justify being annoyed at him, and it's frustrating as hell.

    More recently he's struck some situations where he can't as easily delete history, and ended up digging himself into a hole. He hasn't liked it, but he's also been forced to learn to be more careful about what he says around and about other people. Watching him squirm is great.

    There may be a few exceptions along the lines of someone posting private or personal information about someone else where it's generally agreed that it shouldn't be posted. If anything is deleted, there should still be a record that it was there, as well as who deleted it and the reason why it was deleted. (Preferably written by a trusted third person.) But hopefully that's not common enough that people need to be given control of removing their own comments.

    In general if someone's dumb enough to say something they regret, then don't let them pretend it never happened. If necessary put a disclaimer up reminding people that they won't be able to delete things. Most people say something silly now and then, but that's what apologies and retractions are for. It's not that bad to admit being wrong, and if it's not representative then it'll show through in other correspondence.


    - izogi


    ok, apologize (nt) (none / 1) (#211)
    by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:27:01 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    the problem with this is (none / 0) (#218)
    by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:55:50 PM EST

    what happens if someone only says dumb things?

    How often have you seen someone apologize on K5 for what he or she said? - I think I might be the only one. - Wow, ain't I great !!

    [ Parent ]

    Here's the thing (none / 1) (#247)
    by aphasia on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 08:50:51 AM EST

    The problem is often not poster A regretting what poster A said, as much as how poster B threatens to use it against poster A. It probably is a meaningless distinction to you until you have something more important to guard than the respect of a friend or two.

    "You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
    [ Parent ]

    Using it against me (none / 2) (#263)
    by Cro Magnon on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 11:51:42 AM EST

    I'm not sure how another poster could seriously hurt me with my comments. Suppose I say something really stupid. I know it's hard to believe, but it could happen. Poster B points to it & says "This proves Cro Mag's an idiot". So what! Maybe he could damage my reputation here and Slashdot. As if THAT would keep me up nights. Now, if I was dumb enough to say "My real name is John Smith, of Company XYZ", THAT bit of info should be deleted, but how often does something like that happen.
    Information wants to be beer.
    [ Parent ]
    My point exactly. (n/t) (none / 1) (#264)
    by aphasia on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 11:54:10 AM EST


    "You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
    [ Parent ]

    Rnadom Comments (none / 1) (#207)
    by sethadam1 on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:14:42 PM EST

    Look, I'm all for the "etch it in stone, live with it" bandwagon, but I see no reason to not allow people to write and edit their own diaries.  If you can't control your diary, it's not a fucking diary! It's just your own K5 weblog.  

    Look, if some douche decides for some reason that he wants his diary taken down, who cares? Let him.  What the hell do you care? Google may have already cached it anyway.  Either way, diaries are not the meat of K5, and should be flexible.  

    Everything else should stay.  I don't even think you should be able to take your name off a story! Rusty should make the "delete me" button delete the account and all its info, but all comments and stories retain the username, just un-hyperlinked.

    Some people are taking this whole thing way too seriously, by the way.


    hold people accountable for their words.. (none / 1) (#217)
    by Suppafly on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:54:10 PM EST

    If you do delete stuff, atleast say who posted there before..

    such as "Comment by Rusty deleted due to user's request"

    or something.. but really, no deletion is the best policy. Being able to close your account would be nice though.
    ---
    Playstation Sucks.
    A comment used to be here. (1.75 / 4) (#219)
    by debacle on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 06:59:11 PM EST

    But some socialist fag decided that it would be more libertarian if we could take back what we said whenever we wanted to, and generally be a dick about anything and everything because sooner or later hell will brim over and then they'll have to send some of those fucking fags up to heaven.

    No deletions.

    It tastes sweet.

    well, dear, you should apologize now (none / 0) (#221)
    by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 07:08:41 PM EST

    ... according to the arguments brought forward by those brave "no-deletion-all-boots-and-hats-and-no-beef-cowboy-warriors that hide behind their nicks to heroicly stand up for all the risks they took to take the responsibility for their words and stand up to their conviction in anonymity.

    How do I love thy K5-Knights.

    Will you apologize now, or do I need to call the cops?

    [ Parent ]

    My email address is posted (none / 0) (#224)
    by debacle on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 07:42:30 PM EST

    I am not a vagina with fingers.

    It tastes sweet.
    [ Parent ]
    again, apologize (none / 1) (#228)
    by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:33:57 PM EST

    remember, if people are not allowed to clean up their own crap and delete it, you should learn to apologize for talking dirt. That's what the wise men here said, who oppose deletion.

    [ Parent ]
    But you see (none / 0) (#231)
    by debacle on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 10:19:30 PM EST

    The world thrives off shoveling crap from pile to pile. It's how things work.

    Why ruin a system that is faltering beautifully on its own?

    It tastes sweet.
    [ Parent ]

    The world thrives ? No, the world (none / 0) (#235)
    by mami on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:54:04 PM EST

    sweats and labors in pain from shoveling crap from pile to pile ... remember someone throwing us evildoers out of paradise to make us work in the sweat etc. etc.

    That's how things work ...  but in general we try to find a trick to make our fate a little bit more comfortable.

    People, who thrive, have found a trick to let other do the work and eat their own crap, while they swim on top, have the cake and eat it too.

    [ Parent ]

    My option. (none / 1) (#223)
    by SoupIsGoodFood on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 07:23:38 PM EST

    I think that things should be as they are, except instead of an admin making the decision. It would be voted by the community.

    Say Bob321 wanted to delete (or anonymized) all his posts. He would have to give a reason, then K5ers would vote on it. Maybe 3 options; "yes", "no", "find another resolution".
    If "find another..." got the most votes, then perhaps Bob321 would just request certain posts, and they would be voted on etc etc.

    If something is deleted, it should have a placeholder, with a link to the original request for deletion/reason why etc.

    Yeah... (none / 2) (#273)
    by skyknight on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 04:44:54 PM EST

    so an embarrassing situation can really get dragged through the mud, and have spotlights thrown on it. Once everyone has seen it, and privacy is a moot point, then have a vote on whether to anonymize the diary. :-)

    It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
    [ Parent ]
    That is a good point. (none / 1) (#284)
    by SoupIsGoodFood on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 08:31:14 PM EST

    There may be possable work arounds.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh my, Rusty. (none / 1) (#225)
    by babylago on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 08:20:41 PM EST

    When leaving the site is so common that it requires automated support, it might be time to archive the whole thing and start over. Seriously. You should look into that.

    ---
    [ Blog | Hunnh ]
    It's not what you'd call "so common" (none / 0) (#251)
    by rusty on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 10:18:16 AM EST

    It's come up three or four times in the last couple of months. It has come up intermittently for the life of the site, and I've never properly dealt with it. Since we're in a period of turnover right now it seems like a good time to deal with it.

    Thanks for the vote of confidence though, asshole. ;-)

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    Keep doing (none / 1) (#229)
    by problem child on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:57:10 PM EST

    what you've been doing. Just stop torturing yourself about it.

    delete stories/diaries but not comments (none / 0) (#230)
    by eliasbizannes on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 09:57:57 PM EST

    A writer should be entitled to do what s/he wants with their story. Even if the community votes something up, the only person who legally can decide what to do with it is the writer. The logic you use is like saying if someone gets elected, they have to stay in the position, even if they want to resign. Unless you explicitly state that articles submitted are the property of K5, which would be a travesty to the democratic media phenomenon espoused by this site, then authors should be entitled to remove their stories as they see fit. And I know here in Australia, Copyright Law states that submissions are the propery of the author.

    A diary entry should be allowed to be removed. They are personal reflections.

    Comments should not be removed. If the poster has changed their mind, or regrets saying what they did, they should follow it up with a posting. The damage has already been done, and all they are doing is trying to rewrite history. Possibly they could have a link on the offending post, stating a reversal or apology.

    Diaries and stories could be replaced with a note like that stated in option three.

    except (none / 2) (#234)
    by sal5ero on Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 11:48:11 PM EST

    if you put your story into the public domain, knowing (and agreeing) that it will stay in the public domain, then you have given up control of it. if you don't like this policy, you don't post your story on k5.

    [ Parent ]
    Not exactly (none / 0) (#250)
    by rusty on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 10:14:43 AM EST

    Submitting a story here does not put it in the public domain, in the legal sense. Our copyright agreement says that you own your story, but by submitting it you grant kuro5hin the right to display it for as long as we choose to. So the original poster wasn't right either -- we do, explicitly, have the right to keep a story up even if the author doesn't want it to be anymore. The self-anonymization option would, however, allow an author to disavow a story if not actually remove it.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    I never agreed to that (none / 1) (#254)
    by dipierro on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 10:57:49 AM EST

    Our copyright agreement says that you own your story, but by submitting it you grant kuro5hin the right to display it for as long as we choose to.

    What happens when K5 gets sold to the CMF? Is your license transferrable? What if someone doesn't notice the copyright agreement? Can we revoke permission when we find out? Or is this a case of "by reading this you owe me your first born?"

    So the original poster wasn't right either -- we do, explicitly, have the right to keep a story up even if the author doesn't want it to be anymore.

    However, you have no proof that the author of the story was the same as the person who submitted it. In any case, I'm explicitly not giving K5 permission to keep my story up indefinately. You have permission to license my story under the QingPL and under ShareAlike 1.0, but that's it.

    The self-anonymization option would, however, allow an author to disavow a story if not actually remove it.

    An author always has the option to disavow a story. Changing the name just makes it a little harder to stumble upon it (like from a web search).



    [ Parent ]
    Answers (none / 1) (#257)
    by rusty on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 11:19:11 AM EST

    What happens when K5 gets sold to the CMF? Is your license transferrable?

    Donated to the CMF, and yes.

    What if someone doesn't notice the copyright agreement?

    That's their problem. It's linked on every page on the site.

    Can we revoke permission when we find out? Or is this a case of "by reading this you owe me your first born?"

    No, you can't really revoke permission. And the license is hardly what you'd call "you owe me your first born." All it says is by posting here you give us the right to display whatever you posted here (and only here on this website). I would think that'd be a pretty obvious effect of posting in the first place. We reserve no other rights whatsoever.

    However, you have no proof that the author of the story was the same as the person who submitted it.

    If you don't own the copyright to something you post here, then you can't post it. If we find that to be the case, and the copyright owner requests I remove something, then I would.

    In any case, I'm explicitly not giving K5 permission to keep my story up indefinately. You have permission to license my story under the QingPL and under ShareAlike 1.0, but that's it.

    I'm afraid you already did. You're welcome to further license it under any license you want -- our terms do not in any way restrict what you can do with your work.

    I'm also not sure why you'd approve of ShareAlike but not our single requirement, that we be allowed to display your work. Under a ShareAlike license, you give up the right to "take back" your work, as well as significant other rights that we would never ask for.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    re (none / 0) (#261)
    by dipierro on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 11:34:21 AM EST

    Donated to the CMF, and yes.

    The agreement does not say it is transferrable.

    If you don't own the copyright to something you post here, then you can't post it. If we find that to be the case, and the copyright owner requests I remove something, then I would.

    OK, so what if someone sends you a DMCA takedown notice that he owns everything posted here under this account and that it was all posted without his permission?

    I'm afraid you already did. You're welcome to further license it under any license you want -- our terms do not in any way restrict what you can do with your work.

    No. I did not. You can't bind me to an agreement just by having some fine print text at the bottom of all your pages.

    I'm also not sure why you'd approve of ShareAlike but not our single requirement, that we be allowed to display your work.

    The problem is that you could potentially sue me if I redistributed a derivative work. Under ShareAlike, if you make a derivative, you have to give me the same permissions I've given you.



    [ Parent ]
    I think you're confused (none / 1) (#262)
    by rusty on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 11:47:05 AM EST

    You're welcome to take this up with a lawyer if you'd like to discuss it further. Briefly: as far as I know, you're wrong on your first point, your second point I already responded to, you're wrong on the third point, and your fourth point doesn't make any sense at all.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Well... (none / 1) (#265)
    by dipierro on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 12:00:28 PM EST

    Obviously I don't care enough to take it up with a lawyer. If I did I wouldn't have posted anything in the first place.

    My first point is that "The agreement does not say it is transferrable." I don't see how you can dispute that. It's right there: the agreement says that you grant K5 and Edna Graustein the right to display the comment. It doesn't grant the CMF any rights, and it doesn't say that the rights are transferrable.

    My "second point" was not a point at all. It was a question.

    My "third point" we disagree on.

    As for my "fourth point," for comments, you have no right to create derivative works in the first place. But for stories, you are granted the right to edit them, thereby creating derivative works. If you edited a story I wrote, and I then put the story with your edits up on my site, you could theoretically sue me for copyright infringement, if the agreement were held valid. Under ShareAlike, that is not possible.



    [ Parent ]
    translation: (none / 1) (#266)
    by aphasia on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 12:59:33 PM EST

    I don't care to actually consult with a lawyer, as that would take time, money, and a modicum of effort. I much prefer to ignore that idea and continue to argue my own insupportable viewpoint.

    "You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
    [ Parent ]

    Right... (none / 0) (#267)
    by dipierro on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 01:36:37 PM EST

    So why don't you consult with a lawyer, then? Nah, you'd rather just argue your unsupportable viewpoint that I am wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    Uhh... (none / 2) (#306)
    by aphasia on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 09:03:32 AM EST

    You're the one challenging the legality of current policy on a site owned by someone other than you: the burden of proof is on you. Think of k5 policy as being equivalent to your own rules in your own house; you invite people over for a party, but the invitees' complaints don't override your rules.

    "You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
    [ Parent ]

    Sure, the burden of proof is on me... (none / 1) (#323)
    by dipierro on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:35:52 PM EST

    But I'm not trying to prove anything. The appearance of fine print at the bottom of a web page is not a contract. If you don't want to believe me, you don't have to. And by the way, I'm in my house right now, not someone else's.

    [ Parent ]
    Erm, (none / 2) (#302)
    by yicky yacky on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 03:29:46 AM EST

    With regards to the "first point", I think rusticles is saying (he can correct me if I'm wrong) that the licence doesn't have to be transferrable, as the content isn't actually "going anywhere else".

    Just because K5 may or may not come under the aegis of the CMF at some point in the future does not alter K5's holdings in and of themselves.

    In submitting story content, you licensed your stuff to K5 (as do we all). K5 still exists and it is still using that content under the original terms of the license you agreed to. It doesn't matter who actually owns K5, as K5 is the organization with whom you made the agreement, and that organization is using the content in the same way it ever has: Legally, nothing has changed.




    yicky yacky
    **************
    'The actual reasonable Britons are correct, you're being a cock.' - Hide The Hamster.
    [ Parent ]
    Additionally (none / 1) (#319)
    by rusty on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:19:03 PM EST

    IANAL, but I don't think contracts have to be specifically transferable to be tranferred. As long as the new party doesn't want to change the terms, and as long as the contract itself doesn't specify that it is non-transferable, why wouldn't it be?

    However, if anyone with more legal knowlege would like to jump in, that'd be great. Do we assume transferability, or not?

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    I suppose (none / 0) (#321)
    by rusty on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:23:26 PM EST

    But for stories, you are granted the right to edit them, thereby creating derivative works. If you edited a story I wrote, and I then put the story with your edits up on my site, you could theoretically sue me for copyright infringement, if the agreement were held valid.

    I suppose. I can't imagine a situation where that would happen though. I've been meaning to offer CC licensing options when you post stuff for quite a while. I'd be happy to also permit retroactive licensing of anythng you've posted in the past along those lines.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    Who gave you this license? You? Ashcroft? God? (1.20 / 5) (#282)
    by mami on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 08:18:21 PM EST

    It's a legal oxymoron, your license. You say you have no copyright and ownership over our words. That means you don't own them. If you don't own them, you are not allowed to prevent the owner from doing with their property what they want to. If you do, you have just committed the crime of theft and extortion. Yep, that's exactly what you do, because you think by writing a paragraph of legalese Kauderwelsch, you are the power to be.

    You say you have the right to display our content and the right to prevent us to remove them from your archives, as soon as we post them here.

    This right, IYO, is activated the moment I formulate a comment here on K5. Well, I just now formulate a comment to tell you that I don't accept your license to be valid, but I have already lost against your license, because the second I open my mouth, you own control over everything that comes out of it.

    How could I ever disagree with it and fight your license? It's extortion. You own my words the minute they are born, my friendly babykiller.

    So, what do you think that means, it means you own them, because my comments wouldn't exist, if they were not posted. You say you have no right to copy them and publish them, but you enable the whole world to do just that, you super joker, and you fight tooth and nails that I can't fight against you.

    I will challenge your license right now , because your license is worth a piece of toilett paper. Here is mine, a much, much better piece of legalese silliness than yours ever was:

    By reading this, you accept this license and copyright of ownership of my comment, specifically you accept this license to supercedes any licence that tries to take the execution of my ownership rights away, which consist of my rights to fully control my comment on this site's server and archives including its deletion.

    Copyright @ 2003 mami

    So, rusty, who owns the right and the power over my comment now, you or me? You have read my sig? Bingo, you just lost my dear. My license supercedes yours, and I got mine directly from the Almighty.

    Wanna fight? :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Theft? (none / 1) (#289)
    by STFUYHBT on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 10:27:08 PM EST

    In order for there to be theft you have to show that you lost something valuable. Your idiotic words are worthless- so no theft.

    -
    "Of all the myriad forms of life here, the 'troll-diagnostic' is surely the lowest, yes?" -medham
    [ Parent ]
    Words can kill (none / 0) (#296)
    by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:24:21 AM EST

    you deny that this is of great value? Words can heal - you deny that this is of great value?  

    I value my comments. Hope that helps you to understand my idiotic words.

    [ Parent ]

    The courts give the right (none / 2) (#318)
    by rusty on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:16:50 PM EST

    Licenses are contracts, and their validity is determined in the courts. I'm no lawyer, but comparing my license and yours, I'd say mine would probably be upheld and yours would not. You can't apply a license based upon the act of reading the license. A contract has to be agreed to, and you can't agree to something by reading it without first reading it. It's self-contradictory.

    K5's license says that by posting you agree to it. Posting is a very deliberate action. Given that (afaik) shrinkwrap licenses and click-through licenses have been upheld in court, I doubt ours would have much trouble. Expecially since it reserves only the rights that ought to be bleeding obvious when you post something. For more on that, see my more legalistic reply above.

    Well, I just now formulate a comment to tell you that I don't accept your license to be valid

    The way you say that is, you don't post. That's all.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    re (none / 0) (#324)
    by dipierro on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:55:38 PM EST

    K5's license says that by posting you agree to it. Posting is a very deliberate action. Given that (afaik) shrinkwrap licenses and click-through licenses have been upheld in court, I doubt ours would have much trouble.

    Posting is a deliberate action, but there is no reason to believe that a person read the legalese page before posting. Assent to a contract needs to be given *after* reading the contract, not before it. As you said yourself, "A contract has to be agreed to, and you can't agree to something by reading it without first reading it."

    The way you say that is, you don't post. That's all.

    The problem is when you've already posted before you read the agreement, which most of us have done. Getting back on the point, that's why there has to be the ability to remove content. Yes, you say that rights are bleeding obvious, but the fact that we're talking about whether or not content will be removed shows that they're not. It's obvious that you're going to post the content. But it's not obvious that you're going to post it forever, and it's certainly not obvious that you reserve the right to make modifications to it. There needs to be a way for someone to revoke those rights if they were made inadvertently.



    [ Parent ]
    well, I have already answered above, but here (none / 2) (#341)
    by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 06:45:51 PM EST

    again,  why I would assume your license wouldn't be upheld in court:

    Your license would effectively mean that someone can't post online and keep any display rights, because once posted to your site, the control over the display is lost completely, not only for the dispaly on your site, but for the whole internet medium.

    That makes the display rights your license grants you, effectively the same as absolute ownership rights over the comment. But as you yourself can't prevent the display of the posted comment over all of the internet - beyond your own server - your license leads the user to only two choices, never post online at all or losing all rights to the comments.

    I doubt that a license, who enforces such a choice - basically forcing the user to never be able to comment online and keeping ownership rights over his words - could  be upheld in court.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Hysterical nonsense. [nt] (3.00 / 3) (#346)
    by rusty on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 10:01:21 PM EST



    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    I hear you ... (nt) (none / 0) (#350)
    by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 11:09:47 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    hello (none / 2) (#358)
    by Night In White Satin8 on Sun Dec 07, 2003 at 07:52:47 PM EST

    Hi Rusty

    Could you please tell me why you took away my diary/story writing privileges for absolutely no reason? Thanks in advance.
    Why did rusty take away my story writing/diary writing privilege for no legitimate reason?
    [ Parent ]

    Mandatory cooling-off period (none / 2) (#236)
    by fencepost on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 12:10:42 AM EST

    I voted for removing diaries only (and comments under them), but I think there should be a mandatory cooling-off period. Perhaps you can hide your diaries for a month but you'll only be able to actually delete them after they've been hidden for 3 weeks, and if you don't do so then they automatically unhide at the end of the month. You could also unhide them at any point.

    For emergency situations where there was a reasonable need to remove them immediately rusty could still be contacted, but frankly I don't really see what the need for that would be.

    --
    "nothing really says "don't hire me, I'm an idiot" quite as well as misspelling "pom-pom" on your resume." -- former

    no deletion + anonymous posting (2.25 / 4) (#237)
    by anmo on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 02:35:15 AM EST

    No deletion. Make it easier to post anonymously instead. As a last resort, everybody can post through a meaningless nickname; if you're dumb enough to use your real name you'd better stand behind what you say.

    I give you the purple heart for bravery! (none / 2) (#281)
    by mami on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 07:43:53 PM EST

    you anonymous coward. You are my best big-mouthed K5 knight in hiding ever.  

    No shame these kids today ... no honor, no courage, no nothing, just comments over comments over comments. Eliminate everything, just not thy comments!

    [ Parent ]

    barns and horses (2.83 / 6) (#238)
    by martingale on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 02:37:46 AM EST

    I don't think deleting comments solves anything. It's like closing the barn doors when the horses have already left.

    The problem isn't simply that if you delete the comments, they disappear. They don't, as others have pointed out. Anything that's accessible on the web for more than a few minutes can be assumed to be mirroroed somewhere with an increasing chance over time. They may be gone from the k5 database, but not from the world.

    So you can delete all the comments you like, but the reason for doing so, namely because the author is worried about those comments showing up years later, is not helped. On the other hand, it simply disrupts the discussion flow for others.

    We could argue that leaving the comments in is simply making it easier for dedicated individuals looking for dirt on somebody, but it'll be easy enough without deletion. Google crawls for general information, but yahoo has been into cross referencing people's data for years.

    It's no stretch of the imagination that some companies operate crawlers specifically only on blogs and public forums, simply to build cross reference systems for *people*. They can sell this to prospective employers, just like credit rating agencies sell credit reports. K5 is sufficiently well known to be on all their lists.

    It's a terrible thing to realize, but it's already there and will continue to exist in the future. If people can delete their stuff here, they'll just be lulled into a false sense of security.

    There are a few exceptions. Up to (arbitrarily say) half an hour after the post, the chance is slim that a comment or story discussion was mirrored. So deleteing then may have a small chance of being successful. This depends also on how well known the poster is, of course.

    Another possiblity is to anonymize the poster. Simply rename his username to something unrecognizable, maybe "anonymous coward". You'd have to go through the database and substitute all comments which reference the user's name. One advantage of this method is that it makes it hard to cross reference future searches for that user's name. It also fucks up databases of search companies, since their carefully set-up searches for a user's posting history suddenly gets mixed up with other people's posting history. For this to work, it's important to rename *every* user who leaves as "anonymous coward".

    Just my thoughts so far.

    Fatalist !! - You give up before you even started! (1.50 / 4) (#280)
    by mami on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 07:38:21 PM EST

    Shame on you.

    This internet of ours has come upon us and now we have to accept its blessings for eternity, yeah sure. How convenient. What we created, we can't control? Since when?

    [ Parent ]

    not so (none / 2) (#293)
    by martingale on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 11:48:05 PM EST

    This internet of ours has come upon us and now we have to accept its blessings for eternity. How inconvenient. What we created, we can't control!
    Exactly! This is something we've collectively known since Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein.

    If you've just scanned the quote above, please reread it. I've "improved" it somewhat. Who's to say you can control what you yourself have written? Suppose you delete "your" version of your comment. My version will be the only one to be authoritative. Everyone will believe me, me, ME! HAHAHAHAHAHA! I can make you say anything I want, and you can't stop me.

    Seriously: I actually don't think I was being fatalist at all. The facts speak for themselves. There was a dot-company a few years ago which wanted to make all of IRC searchable in real time. There was a dot com that added ads and links to products in your usenet posts.

    You cannot fight the intrinsic properties of the medium (infinite copyability in this case). To be constructive, you must use the medium's strengths.

    The "anonymous coward" example I gave tries to do that. If people delete their comments (or leave a placeholder), search companies can back fill them from their own archives. But if people leave their comments in and attribute them to "anonymous coward" say, then if someone searches for "anonymous coward" years later, they only get a mix of everyone's comments which cannot be separated.

    Now you would think that search companies would simply note that some username became "anonymous coward", and keep an archived older copy of that username's comments. But this directly contradicts such a search engine's purpose, which is to collect current information on somebody. A username change would typically qualify as a "refresh" of existing information, not trigger an archival step. A full comment deletion would trigger an archival step much more easily, because then the lost information is easily spotted.

    [ Parent ]

    :-( you make me cry ... sigh ... (1.50 / 4) (#297)
    by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:37:23 AM EST

    now I have to become an anonymous coward to fight the system - what a crappy world we live in. I guess than I rather really would like to stop posting and leave my past comments resting cowardly and anonymously in peace.

    So, will rusty then grant me this terrific and heroic right to become an anonymous coward?

    I hate the internet. Who created this damn thing?

    [ Parent ]

    don't cry, it's not so bad :-) (none / 1) (#298)
    by martingale on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 01:19:18 AM EST

    I hate the internet. Who created this damn thing?
    I think that's easy to answer. Some anonymous military-industrial-complex engineers ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    hey ... don't make me mad, you made me cry already (none / 3) (#299)
    by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 01:34:09 AM EST

    that's enough now ... yes, see, even those military-industrial-complex engineers are anonymous cowards these day ... and you tell me that I shouldn't hate that? I want my heroes back.

    Rusty, anonymize me now ! I want to be me again and not be haunted by mami.

    I request to be anonymized immediately! You hear me?

    Stupid engineers, all they invent is crap these days. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    How odd (none / 1) (#300)
    by godix on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 02:29:55 AM EST

    Anything that's accessible on the web for more than a few minutes can be assumed to be mirroroed somewhere with an increasing chance over time.

    I was about to question who in their right mind would mirror K5 ramblings but a quick search of my username at Google provided at least two different sites reproducing my posts, one of which was listed on the first page (not that it's a shock or anything, godix isn't exactly common, even Google only knows of two others who aren't me). So nevermind, you're right, shit you never imagined would be mirrored probably is somewhere.

    Well, at least I shall die as I have lived. Completely surrounded by morons.
    - Black Mage[ Parent ]
    Where's Yello? (none / 1) (#310)
    by mcgrew on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 10:14:43 AM EST

    One of the funniest sites I eversaw was "Yello There", a parody of Blue's News.

    You can no longer find any of them.

    "The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
    [ Parent ]

    martingale, you are a fucking moron (none / 0) (#370)
    by lorcha on Tue Dec 09, 2003 at 04:49:58 PM EST

    In case you ever try to anonymize that last post.

    Not much good anonymizing yourself will do now!

    --
    צדק--אין ערבים, אין פיגועים
    [ Parent ]

    heh (none / 1) (#373)
    by martingale on Tue Dec 09, 2003 at 07:19:51 PM EST

    If you reread my post, I state that the string "martingale" must be replaced throughout the database. Clearly, your subject would become "AC, you're a fucking moron", which incidentally seems straight out of slashdot.

    There is of course little that can be done about "m4rt1ngaLE, you're a fucking moron". But then, that's not such a problem. What makes "m4rt1ngaLE" difficult to discover and replace automatically also makes it difficult to search for in a hypothetical future GooglePersons(TM) search engine.

    Your future GooglePersons(TM) search query would find millions of AC posts and five or six posts containing "m4rt1ngaLE", and two containing "mar-tingle". Nothing useful.

    [ Parent ]

    Replacing every occurance is a bad idea (none / 0) (#399)
    by sv on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:42:04 AM EST

    Replace every occurance of the user login in all posts? There exist users "yes", "hello", "welcome"; replacing all these words to "[hidden]" would be a bad idea.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't web archives (none / 3) (#239)
    by auraslip on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 03:20:18 AM EST

    make deletions pointless?

    The further we go into this internet future, the harder it will be to erase what has been done.

    You can fight this by allowing deletions, but you can not win.
    ___-___

    No deletion, except... (2.50 / 4) (#240)
    by fae on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 04:03:33 AM EST

    Except for administrative deletions of single items, when that particular item clearly does not belong in public. When possible, replace only the offending block of text with tiny icons depicting tins of monocle polish, one for each character.

    -- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
    hmm, do you want to start a business with me (none / 0) (#313)
    by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:01:41 PM EST

    producing monocle polish and selling it on K5? Should be profitable.

    [ Parent ]
    Anonymising is the better option (none / 3) (#244)
    by 5pectre on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 07:56:31 AM EST

    for comments at any rate, it obviously wouldn't work for diaries.

    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    Can't anyone think about the children?! (none / 1) (#248)
    by JanneM on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 09:59:43 AM EST

    ...the children of comments/diaries/stories, that is. What I am missing is an option to remove (or anonymize, though that is slippery, due to recent results in text identification) posts, diaries or story submissions, only if they do not have a response.

    "Huh?", I hear you say. Well, the point of a comment on this site really only have an effect if/when it receives a response or vote. At that point, it becomes one part of something (slightly) larger, composed of input from several people, not all of whom are the poster (hopefully). Once it reaches that point, you would deprive the other contributors of the thread of their work if you were to excize part of it.

    There is also the problem of quoting, but I will post another text on that above shortly. Suffice to say, that when a thread springs into existence, quoting and other such issues will in practice make a practical stop to the effort to remove the comment in practice anyway.

    For diaries, the story is pretty much the same. For stories, well, if you manage to submit a story and it does not receive a vote or comment, nobody will miss it in the first place.
    ---
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.

    "640kb ought to be enough for anyone" (none / 3) (#249)
    by JanneM on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 10:06:23 AM EST

    "I forgot to mention it, but I was also planning to add an option for users to close their account, remove personal info, and (optionally) automatically rename the account to something generic and unrelated to them."

    Interesting quote by Rusty above. Also, if Rusty decided to remove all he's written from the site, this quote would still remain.

    In fact, the more inflammatory, the more controversial your post, the higher the chance that it will survive as a quote elsewhee in the thread, no matter what you want Rusty to do to your posts. And editing other people's posts to remove them are - I think most of us would agree - beyond the bounds of any reasonable scheme for content removal.

    So, as I argue in a post lower down, the only real option is to let people remove only that content which other people have not yet reacted to, whether in voting or replying. Once a piece of content have triggered a reaction in others, that piece is no longer wholly the posters own.
    ---
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.

    We need an instant runoff (none / 2) (#253)
    by dipierro on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 10:44:12 AM EST

    On the other hand, I don't like the idea that every stupid thing everyone ever said should be held forever for posterity, and I'm pretty uncomfortable being the guy who ultimately decides that that's how it shall be.

    Simple solution: put it to a vote. Then you can just blame the users.

    Anyway, I have the same problem with this vote as I've had with previous ones. The way they are set up determines the result. It's like having an election for President with George Bush running against 7 different Democrats. Obviously Bush is going to win. I propose an instant runoff election between the top two choices, if no choice gets a majority of the votes.



    I guess that shouldn't say instant... (none / 0) (#256)
    by dipierro on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 11:17:02 AM EST

    It's just a runoff election, not an instant runoff election, which is something completely different. Blah, can I delete my last comment and fix it? :)

    [ Parent ]
    Just like how we ended up with a fiction section (none / 0) (#272)
    by skyknight on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 04:37:25 PM EST

    [nt]

    It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
    [ Parent ]
    Yep (none / 1) (#276)
    by dipierro on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 06:13:33 PM EST

    And I complained about it then, too.

    [ Parent ]
    Revisionist history (2.85 / 7) (#259)
    by pyro9 on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 11:20:54 AM EST

    I can think of many good reasons for a no-deletion policy.

    Any decent discussion is more than the sum of it's parts. At the same time, if random parts disappear, it becomes LESS than the sum of it's remaininmg parts (since many of those parts will no longer make any sense). K5 is a public record. If you want to say something 'off the record', log out and then say it.

    Trolls would likely have a bit too much fun making comments, getting replies, then deleting their comments (using a throw away account if necessary) so that what remains now looks like a troll itself, or simply looks silly.

    If comments can be deleted at will, they all become throw-away comments. That will only lead to more ill considered comments than we have now.

    The web has enough problems with disappearing information now. We need more rather than less perminance and accountability.

    There may be a very few compelling cases for deletion, but I suspect they are few and far between. Those can be handled as they are now. It's the difference between policy as a basis for decision vs. policy dictating decision. The latter is never the best policy :-)


    The future isn't what it used to be
    You care for the Web? (none / 1) (#279)
    by mami on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 07:25:54 PM EST

    The web has enough problems with disappearing information now.

    Could you please care for me and not for this dummy web, you cruel man? I have more than enough problems with too many information now and my interests are much more important than your itty-nitty-pity web problems.

    [ Parent ]

    Then don't read the web (none / 0) (#304)
    by pyro9 on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 07:55:46 AM EST

    If you have trouble with too much information, feel free to not read any more of my postings. You even have my permission to not open your browser at all if you prefer. There, problem solved. :-)


    The future isn't what it used to be
    [ Parent ]
    Oh no, you condemn me to be an ignorant - (none / 0) (#312)
    by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 11:59:27 AM EST

    how could I agree with your suggestion to not read the web. Joker. No shame you have.

    [ Parent ]
    Shame is bad, umKay (none / 0) (#316)
    by pyro9 on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:12:42 PM EST

    Not even a little bit.

    Perhaps you can read the web every other day or every other hour. If you really need a fine grained result, set your monitor up at 60 Hz and shine a bright flourescent light on it, you can read the web every other 1/60th of a second. As an advanced technique, use an interlaced mode to read every other scanline. Take lots of aspirin!

    For a different perspective, adjust things so objects in the monitor are closer than they appear in the sideview mirror.


    The future isn't what it used to be
    [ Parent ]
    I just read in a German newspaper (none / 0) (#320)
    by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:21:59 PM EST

    about an international meeting of security people discussing how to fight online crime.

    They came to the conclusion that nothing is more difficult than to create a feeling of shame among internet mafiosos, vigilantes and other losers. They realized though that the only way you can successfully fight internet crime is on the emotional and psychological basis.

    So, god dammit, be ashamed of yourself. And if you don't, I will think of ways to make you so, guaranteed.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Care for you? (none / 0) (#309)
    by mcgrew on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 10:09:38 AM EST

    I don't even know you! Heck, you're not even part of my online harem, are you?

    On the other hand, I love the web and hate what the commercial interests have done to it.

    "The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
    [ Parent ]

    As much as I hate to say it, (none / 1) (#260)
    by aphasia on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 11:26:25 AM EST

    k5 is probably not a good diary site. At this point, I might actually vote to remove the diary portion of the site entirely, which turns k5 into a strictly story-comment forum, in which there really should be no reason to have deletion of any comments or stories.

    A poorly-said comment, or a disavowed comment, can always be apologized-for right after the comment itself. Then, the only reason for comment deletion should be in the case of comments so abusive or inappropriate that an admin chooses to remove it, and even there, k5's voting/hiding mechanism should be enough.

    The main thing people ask for is removal of their diaries. If we get rid of the need to remove user diaries by simply not having them, and if there was a user-initiated, confirmed-via-email, anonymize or name-change option with a 3-day delay for user info, problem solved.

    "You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave

    Some other ideas... (1.50 / 4) (#271)
    by skyknight on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 04:33:26 PM EST

    • cut out people's tongues to avoid sticky First Amendment issues
    • collect and destroy all guns to obviate Second Amendment debates
    • disband all soldiers, so we'll never have to worry about housing them in a private residence during times of peace
    • outlaw the possession of papers and effects so we don't have to worry about them being unreasonably searched and seized
    • nix the right not to self incriminate; good people don't have anything to hide!
    • do away with trials so we don't have to worry about them being speedy and public
    • get rid of K5 altogether, so I don't have to spend $20 on it for five month's worth of premium subscription
    • excessive bail shouldn't be an issue; if you're in jail then you're probably guilty anyway
    • rights? you don't have no stinkin' rights
    • hah! nobody knows the tenth one anyway!


    It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
    [ Parent ]
    the tenth right is of course (none / 1) (#278)
    by mami on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 07:22:13 PM EST

    rusty's right to close your account and make you disappear for good. He has a license to kill, you know ... your words.

    [ Parent ]
    misplaced hyperbole (none / 1) (#291)
    by aphasia on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 10:39:25 PM EST

    That's a little much, don't you think?

    I'm just saying that the ideas most people are expressing, that of eternal archival of ideas, is less compatible with diaries and associated comments, which aside from having little to no historical value, effectively means eternal archival of rants, crapflooding, trolling, and horrible-ass runon sentences.

    "You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
    [ Parent ]

    I just felt... (none / 0) (#294)
    by skyknight on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:02:45 AM EST

    that axing the diary section for your cited reasons was akin to taking a gun to one's head to cure a headache. I rather like the diary section, even if sometimes it suffers from crapflooder inanity.

    It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
    [ Parent ]
    I just felt... (none / 0) (#295)
    by skyknight on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:06:58 AM EST

    that axing the diary section for your cited reasons was akin to taking a gun to one's head to cure a headache. I rather like the diary section, even if sometimes it suffers from crapflooder inanity.

    It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
    [ Parent ]
    And I just feel (none / 0) (#305)
    by aphasia on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 08:59:34 AM EST

    I just feel that current policy leanings at k5 are incompatible with diaries, which demand a little more control of past writings, especially given the current k5 population.

    "You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
    [ Parent ]

    I'm not sure which is more disturbing... (none / 1) (#275)
    by skyknight on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 05:21:59 PM EST

    the fact that such a destructive idea is being considered, or that said consideration has generated the most rich and vibrant debate I've seen on K5 for a long time, or perhaps ever.

    As per the instructions in the article, I have abstained for a while regarding how I would vote. I have, however, come to a conclusion that is in line with my initial feelings. Deletion should not be allowed in any form. My reasons are very simple.

    • it would irrevocably tear the rich (and often inane) tapestry that is the history of K5
    • it would have a negative effect on the quality of postings, as people would be tangibly effected by the "safety" of falling back on a total wipe
    • Any perceived positive effects would be nullified anyway; if you put something on the Internet, you can never get it off

    Hell, I think that there should be less deletion. Personally, I am irked by the fact that dumped stories become inaccessible, and have their comment notification turned off. Some of the most interesting threads in K5 are in stories that ultimately end up dumped.

    I am, however, waffling on the idea of being able to delete comments and ban people from one's own diary. I think the idea has a lot of merit. While it has some serious drawbacks, I think that the benefits outweigh the costs.

    Certainly as Michael Moore has noted below, if deletion were allowed it should be dichotomous, i.e. you could not do it selectively. I think it's a bad idea all around, but that if it does get put in place, for the love of everything that K5 is, don't make deletion selective. It must be all or nothing; either you leave everything as it is, or you purge everything in an odious cataclysm of revisionist history.



    It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
    yes,all or nothing, gimme live or gimme death (none / 2) (#277)
    by mami on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 07:15:46 PM EST

    if men would just be less pathetic ... I don't dare to imagine how beautiful the world could be.

    [ Parent ]
    There's this thing... (none / 1) (#348)
    by skyknight on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 10:24:44 PM EST

    called a "slippery slope". You may have heard of it. If we don't keep Rusty off of it, he may very well spend all of his time sliding down it, and none of his time hacking Scoop and tweaking the DB and mod_perl servers to squeeze more performance out of them. Simple rules are often desirable because they allow for efficient and equitable application.

    It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
    [ Parent ]
    How about comments deletable after XXX months? (none / 1) (#287)
    by Mysidia on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 08:56:33 PM EST

    On the other hand, I don't like the idea that every stupid thing everyone ever said should be held forever for posterity, and I'm pretty uncomfortable being the guy who ultimately decides that that's how it shall be.

    Let a user delete only their story/diary comments older than XXX months, and set placeholder, never destroy all comments, and never destroy stories. Maybe the timeout thing too: only one comment at a time, and an additional month waiting period.

    I would tend to say only let "unimportant" comments be deleted, but then it is difficult to measure importance: that's like the rating problem



    -Mysidia the insane @k5
    I think the best option... (2.25 / 4) (#288)
    by Lai Lai Boy on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 09:31:16 PM EST

    Is there anyway we could have a user tag a la Livejournal, in which we could reference a users name via a tag (perhaps the tag would refer to an ID number)? Then even in quotes, a user name can be changed to something generic, which is the best option in my humble opinion.

    [Posted from Mozilla Firebird]

    Seriously now, (1.25 / 3) (#290)
    by mami on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 10:36:22 PM EST

    I reread the "license" (not sure if this is a license or just a policy outline) rusty has.

    It says that the user retains copyright and ownership over his comments. It then goes on to say that by posting to the K5 site the user grants non-exclusive serial rights to K5.org to display the comment. May be the devil is in the word "serial"?  

    Does that mean that by granting those serial rights, I have to accept the loss of my ownership rights, which must include the right to withdraw my comment from the archives, automatically, just because I am forced to granting the display rights of my comment to K5?

    I don't think so. It's not spelled out. What are serial rights?

    Basically a user can't post a comment without displaying it, it's technically impossible.

    Therefore I don't specifically have to grant K5 a right, because it has to be displayed anyhow just to exist, with or without granting that display right to K5.

    This "license" - is it a license? - doesn't say that I grant K5 the right to prevent me from using my ownership rights, which his "license" states are still mine, over my comment and therefore I don't grant them the right to prevent me from withdrawal of my comments from the archives.

    Any suggestions. I tried to cover this jokingly somewhere down there, now I am asking seriously.

    Learn more about copyright (none / 3) (#315)
    by rusty on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 12:10:31 PM EST

    This is an entirely uncontroversial license that does the absolute minimum necessary to have a functioning site. It says that by posting you give us the right to display whatever you posted at our discretion for however long we want, here on the website kuro5hin.org. We have that right for this one copy of your work that you have posted here. Whatever else you do with the text, whether you post it on another site, or sell it to a magazine, or transfer the copyright ownership to your cat fluffy, it is completely your decision. The only thing you cannot do is force us to remove your work. The license is a contract between the author and kuro5hin.org, which you agree to abide by each time you post something. That's all. And just like any other contract, you can't just change your mind after the fact and say it's not valid anymore. For comparison purposes, most websites have a license which says that they can do anything they want with your words, including selling them, publishing them in other formats, or printing them and shredding the paper to line their bird cages. K5 specifically limits our use to electronic publication at this website address.

    "Serial rights" is a sort of outdated (for our purposes) publishing term that means "the right to publish a work in serial form" (i.e. in a magazine). It's usually called either first serial rights or second serial rights depending on whether the piece has never been published before or whether it has. For our purposes, I don't care whether it's first serial or reprints.

    By agreeing to this license, you enter into a contract with K5 to allow us the right to publish your writing online. You don't lose any rights to your work, in terms of what you do with it in the future. You don't lose your copyright ownership, which just means you have the right to grant licenses to make copies of your work.

    But the contract does not specify that you have the right to "take it back." That is not an inherent right you have as the copyright owner of a work, because there's no place to take your work back from unless it's published somewhere. So the right to delete, in the sense were talking about here, exists solely because of the contract you enter into. K5 reserves the right to make that decision for the copy which you license to us.

    And finally, you are not "forced" to give up anything. You are not forced to post here. If you don't like the terms, or don't understand them, there is nothing at all compelling you to post your writing here.

    I hope that helps clear it up.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    That answer is much too easy to be taken seriously (none / 2) (#331)
    by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 03:24:33 PM EST

    Fact is that I can't even post a comment to make known that I don't agree to your license term.

    The only thing you cannot do is force us to remove your work.

    I wonder if that is consistent with the fact that according to your license I do not lose my copy- and ownership rights of my comment.

    Neither you can really remove my comment from the medium (you can only remove my comment from your server), nor can I. Even if I were to try to force you, it never would have the desired effect of complete removal of my comment from the online medium, which of course is the only goal an individual would have that desires removal.

    What would it serve me to be removed from your server, when my comment continues to exist at your neighbor's server. Martingale has made that very clear to me.

    Considering that nobody can really force you to remove a comment, because the comment is unremovable from the system at large, you don't even need a right, you don't have the power to remove it, but you behave as if you had that power, where in fact the power is intrinsic in the medium you use and not in your license.

    All you do is trying to use those intrinsic features of the medium to help you deduct ownership rights of as much of the medium's content as you can. That's what I oppose.

    To not allow a user of your individual website on your individual server to even try to remove the comment (even if it's just a weak attempt of beating the system) is strange. Can you explain me what motivation is behind it?

    I can't find any other motivation than trying to come as close to ownership over the comments in your database as possible. You even have said that you can sell your rights to someone else. It's all the old stuff that happened before. This is nothing new. That doesn't make it more right though. Alexa etc.

    Look at your own log (I wrote a new diary about it). The reason why you hated to make a decision of removal of jjayson's comments were the fact that you considered his comments a "valuable contribution" to K5. So, basically, you hated to let go of your "property", isn't that what it is?

    The irony of all of it is that the users of this site think your editing power should be used to erase "offensive crap". Sure, that sounds reasonable. Why then not be reasonable to allow a user to erase his own offensive crap? If nothing else, it would save you some time. You admitted yourself, you hate making the decisions about removals.

    I remember (as a non technical user, who has better things to do than really spend years into copyright and licensing fights of the coder gurus of our times,) when deja news made it possible for users to remove their comments.

    I then went through mine and tried my best to remove most of them, not because I feared they would hurt me, but because I thought they were irrelevant and they didn't need to linger around on the medium. I consider this as one of my basic rights over my comments and I would never allow anybody to take that away from me by any feable nilly-willy license, if I could.

    I was very aware that what deja news offered was just a half-baked solution and could never be a complete removal of all traces. But better something than nothing. You are so greedy that you don't want to offer something, you want everything and I don't want to give it to you. On top of that you display a moralizing attitude to people who beg you for removal. If you don't feel ashamed to play God over your user's comments, I can't help you.

    I have also watched some professionals to almost completely remove from deja news their traces from the medium. So, the amount of success you can have as an individual to remove your traces is dependent on your professionalism using the medium.

    That alone is unacceptable to me, because it leads directly to abuse of power of professionals over unprofessionals.

    Just because you tell me I can't force you, doesn't mean you have an inate right to my comments. At least it would in no way prevent me to fight what you consider your legal rights. (I don't mean you personally and K5 specifically, but just in general).

    At least you would have to post your license at a place outside of the K5 site and people would have to be forced each time they try to post to check a box acknowledging that they agree to give you a specific right to that comment.

    The right to display a comment is matter of factly, IMO, an ownership right over the comment. There is nothing else you can do with a comment than to display it. So I wonder how can you be hair-splitting with the words copyright and ownership rights and display rights. It's so obfuscating for any average user, on whose comments your site relies so completely, that you should even be ashamed to give me the advice to learn more about copyrights.

    Ok, I guess I am exhausted now over the issue and my guess is you are darn tired too and will change nothing, because in the end we are quite lazy butts.



    [ Parent ]

    P.S. apparently I have lost my diary (none / 1) (#332)
    by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 03:27:40 PM EST

    I don't know why. I spent a lot of time to write it. Well, too bad.

    [ Parent ]
    Willfull ignorance is not impressive (none / 3) (#333)
    by rusty on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 03:47:10 PM EST

    as a non technical user, who has better things to do than really spend years into copyright and licensing fights of the coder gurus of our times

    And that's basically the problem. Most of what you're saying doesn't make any sense, because you don't appear to know anything about copyright and licensing. I did my best, but you've got your opinion and you're obviously sticking to it. Hopefully other readers will have learned something from this exchange.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    oh lord have mercy ... (nt) (none / 1) (#335)
    by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 05:58:13 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    well, I am too angry to let this go by (none / 2) (#339)
    by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 06:21:14 PM EST

    Answer me this question, rusty:

    Within the framework of online media what else can you do with a comment than posting it? If your license says that as soon as a comment is posted, you gain display rights over the comment, don't you think you have gained ownership rights over the comment with it?

    And not only that, because of the intrinsic features of the online medium, you have gained complete and absolute ownership over the comment, as you technically can't guarantee a complete and absolute removal of the comment, even if you wanted to.

    Your license, taken to its logical end, would mean I have only two options, not ever to comment online ever, or losing any ownership and display rights for good, if I were to post comments online. It hasn't even anything to do with your site. It's a generic feature for any post to any online site.

    If you can't understand that, I ask myself who is the willful ignorant here.

    Within the framework of online media, I am convinced that display rights equal ownership rights. Try to prove me the opposite.

    Let's say I publish a book and it's sold in bookstores. I can at any time withdraw the book from being sold and offered in bookstores. I can make it illegal for anybody, who has already bought the book, to produce copies and publish it anywhere else. I have copyright and ownership rights, which would include display rights in public places like libraries and bookstores.

    Were anybody to take the book, scan it and post the book's text online, I would still have a copyright, but I would have lost display rights, because nobody would be able to withdraw the online text from being displayed once it's online.

    Considering that casual discussion comments posted online rarely would even warrant a copyright, the only thing the user could have over this comment were display rights, which in this case are the only form of ownership rights you could have over the comment.

    By taking display rights from the user away, you establish ownership of the comment.

    And yes, I am absolutely not impressed with your previous answer.

    [ Parent ]

    No. (none / 2) (#345)
    by rusty on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 10:00:39 PM EST

    If your license says that as soon as a comment is posted, you gain display rights over the comment, don't you think you have gained ownership rights over the comment with it?

    No.

    Within the framework of online media, I am convinced that display rights equal ownership rights.

    You are wrong.

    Try to prove me the opposite.

    Fortunately, I have absolutely no need to do so.

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    Time will tell. (none / 2) (#349)
    by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 10:58:00 PM EST

    Fortunately, I have absolutely no need to do so.

    I wouldn't bet on it.

    [ Parent ]

    Why not? (none / 1) (#351)
    by rusty on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 11:14:12 PM EST

    What possible event would compel me to prove to you that display rights do not equal ownership rights?

    ____
    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]
    a revolt by users (none / 2) (#356)
    by mami on Sun Dec 07, 2003 at 02:23:02 PM EST

    who feel their words have been (ab)used improperly and who don't accept the loss of control over their own words.

    Of course you have not to prove me personally anything, in case you really should have misunderstood my comment that much.

    But I doubt that I am the only one, who would  argue along similar lines I did (lots of hysterical people out there, rusty :-)) and those people most probably will be very calm legal and technical professionals, who haven't lost their moral compass about what rights people should have over their online typed words.

    I doubt that I am the only one, who is sincerely angry about the fact that by posting to an online forum one loses control of what and where and how it will be used. It's bad enough that one has no choice than accepting the fact that this technology forces one into this situation. It's worse, if one runs into people, who use those intrinsic features of the medium to their individual advantage.

    The last thing we need are people, who use this technically caused loss of user's control over their own data for their own personal business interest and try to establish a "legal right of factual ownership through requesting unlimited display rights" over their website's user's data.

    To me there is NO legal or moral right that would justify to deny a user the right to control his own data and deny him deletion rights of his own data. That's a matter of principle to me and has nothing to do with your specific site. I don't know how often other people have used a license like your's for their blogs.

    Even if there is  so far no bulletproof technical solution to avoid abuse of date (due to its infinite instant copyability and impossibility to delete all traces of a comment), doesn't mean average people like me will just accept to whatever is presented to them. I could very well imagine that one day many people will revolt massively against this media, if it can't be effectively controlled.  

    So, again, I wouldn't be so sure that you won't be faced with answering a similar question one day again. It's not an issue that will go away, and if it would go away, then I think we have lost anyhow.  


    [ Parent ]

    .. hrm .. (none / 0) (#377)
    by sudog on Wed Dec 10, 2003 at 12:12:35 PM EST

    I doubt that I am the only one, who is sincerely angry about the fact that by posting to an online forum one loses control of what and where and how it will be used.

    So far it's looking like you are.

    [ Parent ]
    hello (none / 1) (#357)
    by Night In White Satin8 on Sun Dec 07, 2003 at 07:43:24 PM EST

    Hi Rusty

    Could you please tell me why you took away my diary/story writing privileges for absolutely no reason? Thanks in advance.
    Why did rusty take away my story writing/diary writing privilege for no legitimate reason?
    [ Parent ]

    good troll mami (none / 0) (#352)
    by Nigga on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 11:30:32 PM EST

    It takes a bit to get Rusty to bite. Kudos. :)

    --------
    The fuck happened to Nigga?
    [ Parent ]

    Copyright (none / 1) (#361)
    by QuickFox on Mon Dec 08, 2003 at 05:28:54 AM EST

    Let's say I publish a book and it's sold in bookstores. I can at any time withdraw the book from being sold and offered in bookstores.

    Not at all. Well, of course, if you yourself pay 10,000 dollars to print and bind and advertise a book, and you display it in your own shop, then yes, it's your own money and you can dump your 10,000-dollar investment at a whim. But if a publisher pays, then before they invest that kind of money you'll have to sign a contract with them, giving them control over your material so they won't lose their investment on a whim.

    You'll not only be prevented from withdrawing your book, you even have to give your publisher the right to reprint your book as much as they like, and you can't stop them. This is because only some of the books that are published make a profit. The profitable books have to pay for the others.

    Most likely the contract will also prevent you from selling the same book to some competing publisher at the same time. In fact it's very likely that ten years later, when your book is long forgotten, if you want to publish it again with another publisher, the original publisher will still own the copyright, so you'll have to go back to them and negotiate.

    Basically, what happens is that you sell your rights to a publisher. The publisher pays you good money for those rights. Having bought these rights they own them. You don't!

    On Kuro5hin there isn't a publisher investing 10,000 dollars to publish your work, and nobody pays you. But there is a joint effort of several hundred people investing time, effort and some money, trying to make the site interesting, by trying to post interesting articles and discussions.

    A site where the material disappears after a while would be a different kind of site. In a way this discussion is about what kind of site Kuro5hin should be. Rusty is asking the contributors/investors what kind of site they want.

    If your license says that as soon as a comment is posted, you gain display rights over the comment, don't you think you have gained ownership rights over the comment with it?

    Not at all. If Kuro5hin had ownership rights, this would mean that you couldn't publish your material elsewhere, only Kuro5hin could do that. Kuro5hin could then publish your material on other websites and in books and magazines, and you could not do this.

    The "legalese section" explicitly says that you retain those rights. Kuro5hin only gets the right to display your material, that's all. But it does get that right! That's reasonable.

    Considering that casual discussion comments posted online rarely would even warrant a copyright,

    Warrant? A copyright does exist, automatically. You really need to try to understand copyright better!

    A copyright exists automatically, and it belongs to the writer unless otherwise stated explicitly. The details are subject to agreement, to contract. In the case of a website this contract is detailed in the site's Terms Of Service or whatever.

    I find it a little hard to believe that you have commented so much about this matter without thinking it through and exploring it even a little. Therefore, maybe I'm biting a troll here. But clearly a fantastic number of people comment extensively on copyrights and other rights without understanding these rights.

    This is very unfortunate, since rights are important and must be defended, and therefore must be understood. So, regardless whether this is a troll bite or not, I hope this explanation will be useful at least to some readers.

    Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fi
    [ Parent ]

    Read it!? (none / 1) (#340)
    by coryking on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 06:34:36 PM EST

    I practically fell asleep! This person is taking this licencing crap way to seriously. This is just a discussion board... jeeezzz...

    [ Parent ]
    I learned that... (3.00 / 6) (#347)
    by skyknight on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 10:18:48 PM EST

    stubbornness and willful ignorance beat logic and reason any day of the week. What did you learn?

    It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
    [ Parent ]
    You asked for my 2 cents so here it is: (2.66 / 6) (#292)
    by Mrs FlightTest on Fri Dec 05, 2003 at 10:42:26 PM EST

    I like choice 5... but I think that a diarist should have full control of their diary. Too many trolls on k5 do not understand what a diary is & make abusive, rude comments.

    If a user is given the ability to delete their own comments or diaries, I think they should have FULL control of their diary with the ability to remove offensive comments and even bar others from placing comments in their diary (if such a thing is possible).

    The trolls have gotten way out of hand & it has resulted in a mass exodus from k5. FlightTest & I are not renewing our subscription because we feel that it simply is no longer worth the effort to wade through all the garbage to get to the few useful comments given.

    That and many of our favorite diarists have already left for greener pastures.


    "profanity makes it better" - evilpckls
    :) Happiness is being married to your best friend

    This echos my sentiments (none / 2) (#308)
    by mcgrew on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 10:06:37 AM EST

    I like to see stories and their comments left alone, but one should be able to delete any diary entries or especially othe rpeople's comments in one's diary. For instance, when some anonymous thirteen year old accuses you of incest, bestiality, or liking NSync.

    "The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie
    [ Parent ]

    yes (none / 1) (#336)
    by emmons on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 06:08:32 PM EST

    With one minor addition: the fact that a change was made should be logged and displayed with a timestamp.

    ---
    In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
    -Douglas Adams

    [ Parent ]
    #1 for me. (none / 1) (#326)
    by explodingheadboy on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 01:42:51 PM EST

    If you can't take responsibility for the things you do and say, too bad. That's just immaturity.

    The only case where I think users should be able to have things deleted, is when the information in public somehow puts them in danger. IE: Someone on the site is being harrassed, threatend and had personal information posted.

    Barring that, I can't think of any good reason to allow users to just remove everything, as if they never were here in the first place.

    ---
    Q: If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many pancakes fit in a doghouse?
    A: None! Ice cream doesn't have bones!!!

    [*rmg is dying]

    Totally agree (none / 0) (#355)
    by 8ctavIan on Sun Dec 07, 2003 at 11:51:53 AM EST

    People know they're posting on a public website. It becomes part of the public record. They can't all of a sudden then wish it all back and make everything disappear. I'm sure these same people who want everything stricken from the record are the same people who would really gripe, on the other hand, if you limit what they can do (flame and troll for example). Keep it all here. It's living history. It would be almost 'Orwellian' (for lack of a better term) to delete it.


    Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice. -- H.L. Mencken
    [ Parent ]

    agreed (none / 0) (#380)
    by suquux on Wed Dec 10, 2003 at 09:56:31 PM EST


    All that we C or Scheme ...
    [ Parent ]
    LET THEM ONLY DELETE THEIR NAME! (2.00 / 7) (#327)
    by johwsun on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 02:03:47 PM EST

    LET THEM ONLY DELETE THEIR NAME!

    DO NOT DELETE ANYTHING!
    LET THEM ONLY DELETE THEIR NAME!

    DO NOT DELETE ANYTHING!
    LET THEM ONLY DELETE THEIR NAME!

    DO NOT DELETE ANYTHING!
    LET THEM ONLY DELETE THEIR NAME!

    DO NOT DELETE ANYTHING!
    LET THEM ONLY DELETE THEIR NAME!

    DO NOT DELETE ANYTHING!
    LET THEM ONLY DELETE THEIR NAME!

    DO NOT DELETE ANYTHING!
    LET THEM ONLY DELETE THEIR NAME!

    (rusty, could you please turn this message to an anonymous message? thnx)

    And also... (none / 2) (#328)
    by johwsun on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 02:16:22 PM EST

    If someone posts a message saying: "Iasson is stupid"

    then let Iasson turn the message to: "Isoasn is stupid"

    [ Parent ]

    poll history (none / 2) (#329)
    by johwsun on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 02:26:15 PM EST

    Should we allow content deletion, and if so, in what way? [See story body for more on the options]
     No deletion 46%  
     Full user-choice deletion 2%  
     Full user-choice deletion with placeholders 3%  
     Comment and diary deletion, but not stories, without placeholders 1%  
     Comment and diary deletion, but not stories, with placeholders 16%  
     Deletion of diaries only 20%  
     Deletion of comments only, without placeholders 0%  
     Deletion of comments only with placeholders 0%  
     I vote to have a new vote with different options, based on discussion below 5%  
     Abstain 2%  

    Votes: 806

    [ Parent ]

    limited poll options.. :-( (none / 2) (#330)
    by johwsun on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 02:37:20 PM EST

    This is very bad, for a poll...let us check the poll options and trying to add some other too.

    "stories deletion, but not diary and Comments"

    "stories and diary deletion, but not Comments"

    "stories, diary and comments deletion of any user having a username that contains the same letters of my username (and especially Ionass)"

    please feel free to rate those poll options too
    :-)  

    [ Parent ]

    Please don't delete (none / 3) (#337)
    by levesque on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 06:18:54 PM EST

    If anything comments should be anonymized using some kind of generic name like User A1, User A2, etc or something. I don't feel like having comments rendered irrelevant because they follow a place holder.

    Sorry, didn't read the update n/t (none / 0) (#338)
    by levesque on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 06:20:52 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Now, what about anonymization ? (1.50 / 3) (#343)
    by mami on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 07:22:14 PM EST

    Can anyone come up with something that would indicate that anonymixation is a bad idea?

    From the comment by martingale given to me below, I understand the advantages of anonymization over deletion.

    I personally can think of one disadvantage of anonymization, but it's not worth to mention it among this crowd.

    Will there be anonymization of selected comments or of all comments only for one user?

    If deletion of own diaries is also denied, will at least anonymization be accepted?

    Very bad poll design. (2.60 / 5) (#344)
    by Beneath the Waves on Sat Dec 06, 2003 at 08:06:38 PM EST

    The poll should go "Deletion or not?" followed by a poll on HOW deletion will work. The way it is now, less then 1/2 the people don't want deletion to be an option, but apear (falsely) to be the largest group.

    Just delete the names, leave the comment... (2.92 / 13) (#353)
    by clambake on Sun Dec 07, 2003 at 04:20:28 AM EST

    Problem solved. Just move the comment/diary/etc to under a new generic "[REMOVED USER NAME]" user. That way there will be no way to know who posted it, the comment name will reflect that it has been moved, but the comment is still there for all to see.

    this is a good idea (none / 2) (#360)
    by vinay on Mon Dec 08, 2003 at 12:45:26 AM EST

    but I don't think there should be a global "[user deleted]" user, because then you'll get people replying to themselves, etc. Instead, the person should be renamed to something like [anonymous user #1]. you can leave their ID in the DB the same. It should just require editting a single row.

    -\/


    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (none / 1) (#362)
    by mstefan on Mon Dec 08, 2003 at 12:53:41 PM EST

    Just renaming the account should be enough for people who are worried about being associated with their comments after leaving the site. Personally, I believe people should own what they say, for good or bad, and take responsibility for their opinions. So absent the ability to anonymize retired accounts, I'd advocate a hardline "no deletions, ever" position.

    [ Parent ]
    Problem (none / 0) (#364)
    by mberteig on Mon Dec 08, 2003 at 02:31:28 PM EST

    Obviously that could still leave very difficult information in the comments/stories themselves. It is not mearly being anonymous which is important, since sometimes content is damaging even if it has anonymous authorship. For example, if I post a comment such as:

    I, Someone Real, am a complete idiot and so I am writing something here that admits to guilt to a federal crime, provides proof, and gives up-to-date contact information.

    Then Someone Real who may have written with an anonymous user name won't be helped by name deletion.




    Agile Advice - How and Why to Work Agile
    [ Parent ]
    One problem (none / 1) (#369)
    by Cro Magnon on Tue Dec 09, 2003 at 10:41:27 AM EST

    Suppose I left K5 and wanted to delete my name. But someone said "Cro Magnon, you're an idiot". So, to preserve my identity, their statement would have to be changed to "Deleted#1234 is an idiot". But then some story about cavemen would be full of references to "Deleted#1234". It's a real mess.
    Information wants to be beer.
    [ Parent ]
    Keep Handling it on a Case-by-Case Basis - How? (2.80 / 5) (#363)
    by mberteig on Mon Dec 08, 2003 at 02:26:02 PM EST

    K5 is a public web site that archives discussion. If you don't want stuff to be available, theoretically forever, don't put it up. As many below have pointed out, you seriously cripple the quality of the site by allowing deletions: comment quality will be reduced by the amount that people perceive that they can back out, and discussion quality will be reduced by the percentage of stories/comments that are missing from a thread or meta-thread (multiple stories that are related).

    If the number of requests (legitimate or not) for deletion is increasing, then this obviously represents a problem for Rusty. However, it seems to me that there is a way to make case-by-case deletions managable: a small number of individuals chosen by the K5 community and ratified by Rusty who have the ability to do deletions. I think that there are a lot of ways this could work, but essentially you want to spread the work out among at least a few more people who are trusted. I don't think it need to be complicated either: just make sure that the deletion isn't "real", just virtual and reversable, until a certain amount of time has passed for the user to change his/her mind or in case the "deletors" have made a mistake.




    Agile Advice - How and Why to Work Agile
    I know I don't speak out much anymore. (2.60 / 5) (#368)
    by Inoshiro on Tue Dec 09, 2003 at 12:22:08 AM EST

    However, I don't think that deletion is acceptable.  Data loss is never a good situation.  Without knowledge, you won't know what's gone on.  I've posted things here and elsewhere that have caused me grief (for example, a year and some ago I posted that I was involved in a difficult programming contest -- the person running it quoted a bunch of bible stuff at me and then said that I was not going to win...).

    Even so, deletion's not really optimal.  Renaming might be a strong possibility, but it has to be handled carefully.  Is removing contact info good?  Maybe.  Is renaming the account good?  What about other comments that mention that account name?  How will people understand the Inoshiro poll option if my account is renamed to deleted02957?  Sounds like that adds more complexity of the bad sort...

    Privacy is one thing, but posting to a public site with knowledge that data is archived for several years is another.  People can easily post anonymously if they want to: it's just a matter of creating another account with a random name.

    Removing contact information seems like the only option that is sane.  It's not in the poll, though, so I have to go with #9.

    --
    [ イノシロ ]

    Repentance and Forgiveness (none / 1) (#376)
    by Ruidh on Tue Dec 09, 2003 at 11:19:05 PM EST

    People sometimes make bad mistakes. They say things they haven't thought through or unforseen and unpleasant consequences arose from a late night, drunken comment.

    Refusing to delete when requested is a severe punishment which may be out of proportion to the harm. Forgiveness is a good thing. We all need it from time to time.

    But really, how many people actually read old stories? Is this really an issue?
     
    "Laissez-faire is a French term commonly interpreted by Conservatives to mean 'lazy fairy,' which is the belief that if governments are lazy enough, the Good Fairy will come down from heaven and do all their work for them."

    6 with changes, so 9 (none / 1) (#379)
    by Vesperto on Wed Dec 10, 2003 at 07:12:55 PM EST

    Stories are public, they get voted by users and go to section; coments you post knowing they'll be seen and deleting them would create ugly gaps. I'd leave these alone.

    Diaries can be a bitch, i suggest 4 options to be voted:

    • you can delete your diaries and any time (this would, of course, delete the related comments... something to think about); not very good for integrity: so you feel depressed and whipe your diaries. There's a lot of crap in the D-section, but there is also some pretty good material.
    • you could only have the option of deleting your diaries if you were erasing your account; this would make it serious and irreversible - people would think twice.
    • same as previous, with the option, as you said you're pondering, of changing the account. Probably the most suited if you had an "incident" with your diaries and want to erase the evidence ;)
    • same as previous, only your diaries don't get deleted, they get moved to your new account and become property of that new account.


    If you disagree post, don't moderate.
    Remove personal info (none / 3) (#383)
    by artsygeek on Fri Dec 12, 2003 at 04:13:54 PM EST

    And just leave it at that.

    That's the option I think you should go with, Rusty.  It's the fairest option.

    Belatedly,
    artsygeek.

    It's dead, Jim. (none / 0) (#384)
    by aphasia on Sat Dec 13, 2003 at 12:48:40 AM EST

    So, what's the verdict?

    "You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave

    Omar Khayyam said it best (none / 2) (#385)
    by BobCat on Sat Dec 13, 2003 at 02:56:56 AM EST

    The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
    Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
    Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
    Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

    http://classics.mit.edu/Khayyam/rubaiyat.html

    Top 10 Ways to Amuse a Geek

    Big Brother (none / 1) (#386)
    by BioMalakas on Sat Dec 13, 2003 at 11:09:48 AM EST

    I think George Orwell, had a saying about altering history...and the verdict was History is what is writen. If you feel like giving history altering powers to users then feel free to do so :)
    Arghh...transposons...can't get rid of them...
    I like the idea of removing personality (none / 0) (#387)
    by decaf_dude on Mon Dec 15, 2003 at 10:37:57 AM EST

    Don't allow deletion of content, but when unsubscribing the user should have the choice to retain the name/ownership of the comments etc. posted, or remove his/her own name but k5 keeps the comments etc. intact (i.e. anonymous).

    --
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89158&cid=7713039


    Archive (none / 0) (#388)
    by ageing hippie on Mon Dec 15, 2003 at 02:33:36 PM EST

    Could not any 'sensitive' material  be irretrivable archived for a set number of years... months/decades?
    ------------------------
    Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me
    2 /nt (none / 0) (#389)
    by nekrosys on Thu Dec 18, 2003 at 07:46:28 PM EST


    --------------------------
    St. John Climacus:
    "Pray often in the tombs and paint an indelible picture of them in your heart."
    No deletion. (none / 1) (#390)
    by fink on Mon Dec 22, 2003 at 12:16:45 AM EST

    In my opinion the archived comments are a core - and often essential - part of the stories. Removed comments do create holes in the stories they affect.

    People - as difficult as it is; I know since I've been there - need to just think about what it is they're saying, and if they don't want controversy, don't say controversial stuff.

    If I was to bad-mouth my boss here, knowing full well that he knows my online handle(s), I know and should be willing to accept any consequences.

    Anyway, that's my A$0.02. Remarkably close to US$0.00, innit?


    ----

    Redundancy ahead. (none / 0) (#391)
    by readpunk on Tue Dec 23, 2003 at 08:26:59 PM EST

    For that poll to be fair we need to start with "delete" or "no delete", then move from there.

    ./revolution
    deletion NOT! (none / 0) (#392)
    by johwsun on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 12:22:33 PM EST

    If we delete a message, we cannot undelete it.
    So the real question is: hide or not hide.
    or even
    archive it and hide it, or not hide it and publice it.

    After all, NONE (not even rusty) CAN DELETE ANY MESSAGE FROM KURO5HIN.

    KURO5HIN is mirrored 24h/day, and no message can be deleted.
    Even if rusty tries to delete a message, this message is safely hiden and stored at kuro5hin mirror.


    [ Parent ]

    No deletion (none / 1) (#393)
    by Toshio on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 10:22:26 AM EST

    You can't unprint or unsay what you have printed or said. Giving an option to delete comments removes the only accountability one has on the forum while still protecting the anonymous nature of posting. In my opinion, I think giving user a chance of deleting would lower the overall quality of the forum.

    We all have our little dirty secrets and things in the past, we would like to forget, but I think that like in the real life, one makes a mistake, one apologises for mistake, and one makes up for the mistake in the future. You can't troll around, just to delete the trolls couple of years/months/weeks later. Deleting removes the accountability, and makes people forget about the reactions that follow from their actions.

    Thank you for your time.


    --- To boldly invent more hot water ---
    Discussion quality (none / 3) (#394)
    by Nelson on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 01:26:10 PM EST

    I think that the quality is low at times as is and I don't see how removing any accountability will improve it. Not names, not posts, nothing but the diary and even then I have questions about it.

    Are we talking about deleting posts becuase someone grew up liberal and then got shot by the conservative arrow? Trolls? Attacks that weren't warranted? Drug/alchohol induced false posts? Some examples might make the point more clear. I think that the balance between an open community with free communication and a community of thoughtful people that communicate what the really mean and think about is a tight rope. You want people to think enough about posting that they shouldn't need to modify or delete their posts. At the same time you don't want to treat it as something so sacred that people don't post for fear of saying something they don't mean (k5 doesn't have that problem and probably never will)

    I think it's a terrible step to allow deleting; you can always apologize, you can post a retraction, you can post further explanation but blanket deletion is a bad idea. Posters should put more thought in to their posts, it makes k5 better and raises the discussion quality.

    If you're exploring new ideas, if you're exploring points of view or philosophies then say as much, qualify your view that way don't say inflamitory things and then delete them later. I think this includes the identity of the poster, whatever identity he uses on K5. Again, if you leave you can post apologies, retrations, whatever, if you want to delete your posts then I don't want them here in the first place.

    Another poll. (none / 1) (#395)
    by James A C Joyce on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 08:10:31 PM EST

    Get rid of the five least popular options, then do another poll with those that are left over.

    I bought this account on eBay

    Deletion of Comments/Users/Changes (none / 0) (#396)
    by Inhibit on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 02:59:18 PM EST

    I'm thinking that deleting out user comments would be straight out as they pertain to the replies of others and the overall continuity of the topical discussion.  Even changing the name of the poster and whatnot on a sitewide basis is a little suspect.  When someone posts to a site like Kuro5hin they should expect that post to be indefinately static unless there's the express option to change the single entry.

    Even if there is the option to change a user name on all current and future posts this shouldn't apply retroactively to previous posts by the same user.  I think this would disrupt the continuity of the site and some expectation of accountability by users for what they write.

    On deleting out user accounts, personal things such as diaries, and what have you, that's fine.  If it's not a specifically communal and public entry then it shouldn't impact others overly much.
    -- Inhibit, PCBurn Linux hardware/software reviewer

    Anonymization is still the best option, but... (none / 1) (#397)
    by Kuranes on Sun Jan 11, 2004 at 05:38:33 AM EST

    ...Ruidh make me think when telling in his post the simple truth that people make mistakes. Maybe in some special cases, someone (rusty or one of his delegates) should have the right to delete a post at the begging of a member. It would be good to have this spokesperson publicly known.

    Note that I advocate this only in cases of emergencies. Whenever it is viable, anonymization (everything stays the same, with a random name) should be the highest option.

    In Greek, it's called phronesis.


    ------------------------------------------
    The Church of Fear says: HAVE FEAR!
    Anonymization optimal IMHO (none / 3) (#398)
    by cyberchuck on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:05:11 AM EST

    Of the proposals I favor the anonymization (no deletions, but all references to the poster identity deleted). No lack of continuity, user can choose to "leave" (not be accountable for past mistakes or whatever). My $.02 (probably worth less than that with the current devaluation of the dollar :_)

    Hear Hear! (none / 0) (#401)
    by marcmengel on Mon Jan 26, 2004 at 04:11:51 PM EST

    That's just what I was thinking -- Just flag it as "Anonymous", or "Vanished User", or "The artist formerly known as <squiggly glyph>".

    [ Parent ]
    It wouldn't work (none / 0) (#402)
    by codemonkey_uk on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 07:33:26 AM EST

    It just one person to post reply to a comment or a link to a comment pointing out that the content was written by X and Anonymization [sic] becomes effectively useless.
    ---
    Thad
    "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
    [ Parent ]
    no deletion nt (none / 0) (#400)
    by mikesum32 on Mon Jan 19, 2004 at 07:37:36 AM EST



    No deletions (none / 0) (#406)
    by Philip NT Roth on Sat Feb 07, 2004 at 07:58:18 AM EST

    Agreed...there are numerous incidents, days, weeks and entire years I would delete, given the choice. Life, no rehearsal, and no re-writes. It's a philosophical stance. I recall reading somewhere that some people prefer the music of the harpsichord vs. that of the piano (in classical music) because you cannot change the volume, no matter how hard you strike the keys, and the notes "arrive suddenly, like experience." Besides, it's not like the postings have the intimacy of 19th or early 20th century love letters or so I hope.

    [ Parent ]
    No point in voting on this (none / 0) (#403)
    by codemonkey_uk on Fri Jan 30, 2004 at 07:41:29 AM EST

    When the people who are voting are not very likley to understand the very personal reasons why someone might want their comments/diaries removed. IMHO, Rusty, you should leave it as an "email an admin" option, with the check again in two days time rule of thumb, but don't state that you would never do it again, because you will, and then people will sling shit about it.
    ---
    Thad
    "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
    Renaming / Anonymous Hybrid (none / 2) (#404)
    by Inverso on Tue Feb 03, 2004 at 12:30:39 PM EST

    Anonymity seems to be the way forward - stop the individual, by whatever alias they go by, from being "named" by changing their nickname to "generic_Nickname_n", so that when reading posts, it's possible to see when different ex users are talking to each other, and when it is one person replying to their own posts. This would leave all information in the system, so that there are no gaps, removed postings, or missing information. To get around the problem of people being "named" in conversation, have the script check through all replies to any post from the user_to_be_[deleted | renamed], and change those references.
    -=Jonny B=-
    Responcability (none / 0) (#405)
    by TranquilRage on Fri Feb 06, 2004 at 11:50:45 AM EST

    You shouldnt allow deletions. What is said is said. Being wrong or changing your mind in the face of reasoned argument isnt a bad thing. And if someone fires off at someone else and was wrong for doing so then there unstable and people should know about it. Picture this, a poster on one of the ytunnel forums with a name very much like mine caught one of the mods being a total hypocrite. She deleted and edited some of her replies to my questions and removed the evidence of her being unfair and hypocritical. Yet she IS an unfair and hypocritical person. People need to be accountable for there actions or you remove the burdon of responcibility.
    I am a verb -------------- Matt
    my opinion (none / 0) (#407)
    by hswerdfe on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 11:07:45 AM EST

    -being able to delete comments is important, sometimes posted comments can do harm to an unrelated 3rd party and that is not good at all "For a good time call 555-1234!" -At the same time comments should not be deleted for no reason, so full user control is not a desirable option. "I am an opinionated jerk who changes his mind all the time. and always want to get rid of my old comment" -Changing the name of the account to an unrelated account is not good either, because it won't always acomplish the objective. what if the person put his name, address, and tel# in the comment "For a good time call 555-1234!" "My name is Bob Smith and I live at 123 Fake St." -Conclusion: it should be possible, but Hard to dellete comments. I would suggest a small selected group of trusted users could be allowed to vote on if a submited comment will be deleted...:D oh and I think they should be replaced by place holders.
    --- meh ---
    Responsibility and foresight (none / 1) (#408)
    by orconabora on Sun Feb 15, 2004 at 09:42:03 PM EST

    I am a new user and have found this site to be unlike anything on the internet. The combination of modern attitudes and traditional issues is extremely engaging. I have been annoyed by random and unthought of comments and diary entries. Now that the electronic identity of people is as important as their identity in the real world, one would expect more responsiblity and sincerity. For all the obvious reasons, this has not happened. A second matter is that people may either have insulted some others inardvertently or may even have made about turns on their stands on issues. I think that one cannot wish away something - One can postscript history but not deny it happening.

    I have the following suggestion - We should allow users to indicate for each entry whether they want it to stay on after they leave or allow them the chance to delete it. I think a majority of users will indicate they want to leave their postings no matter what. As entries of the latter kind are likely to be less meaningful than those of the first, readers can set options to view them last in any list of postings.

    Sounds reasonable?


    Think no more, laugh, be jolly Why should men make haste to die? - AEH, A Shropshire Lad, XLIX
    HI RUSTY (1.50 / 4) (#409)
    by NightInWhiteSatin3 on Tue Feb 17, 2004 at 11:09:49 PM EST

    ITS LATE FEB NOW. WHEN CAN WE EXPECT THE DECEMBER 2003 MONTHLY UPDATE? KTHX BYE

    A suggested option: (none / 0) (#410)
    by antispamist on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 03:02:05 PM EST

    Perhaps a way to preserve the content of this site while giving people the ability to control content being linked to them would be to enable a person to disassociate them selves with comments, etc.

    For example, if someone was leaving K5 and didn't want anything related to them, all their comments, diary, stories, etc. could be reassigned to a fictitious character named 'Anonymous Coward' or something.

    I think this satisfies most opinions.

    A useless endevor that will certainly leave u wanting less but getting more.

    No deletion (none / 0) (#411)
    by kekoa on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 05:16:25 PM EST

    I think no deletion encourages people to think about what they say before they say it. No deletion, no editing, none of that. Think before you post, it's permanent.

    A previous commenter suggested that in some special cases deletion is useful, like if somebody posts private information that could cause harm to somebody else. In very special cases like this, of course somebody in charge should take special action, deleting the inappropriate comment and/or banning a user or what have you. But in general, there should be no deletion.

    No Deletion (none / 0) (#412)
    by rholliday on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 05:08:26 AM EST

    Absolutely no deletion. I can hardly believe it's being considered. After spending so long refining a way to cut down on "junk" postings, you'd consider removing a major block? I also can't imagine trying to read a post with every other entry gone. If you said it, you said it. And if you're worried about people associating your comments with yourself, then 1)Don't make them, or 2)Be anonymous. There's nothing that says your userid etc have to be connected to you.


    Survival Guide: Dust Settles. You too can destroy the world!
    what do the poll results mean? (none / 1) (#413)
    by unsubtle on Wed Mar 03, 2004 at 11:44:09 PM EST

    ... since no option has > 50% (ATM, 1525 votes have been cast).  IMO, there are 3 main questions ...

    1. should stories be deletable?

      Yes: 118 (options 2, 3)
      No: 1269 (options 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

    2. should comments be deletable?

      Yes: 403 (options 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8)
      No: 984 (options 1, 6)

    3. should diaries be deletable?

      Yes: 711 (options 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
      No: 676 (options 1, 7, 8)

    on all 3 questions, there are also 97 votes for a new vote with new options (option 9), and 41 abstentions (option 10).

    so there are clear No votes on questions 1 and 2 (story and comment deletion).

    but there's no clear result on question 3 (diary deletion), because there are 35 more votes for Yes than for No, which is fewer than the 97 votes for a new poll with new options.  IOW, a poll on just diary deletion might go the either way.  perhaps some of the 97 didn't like the options we were given for comment deletion, but would happily vote Yes or No in a poll just about diary deletion.  or perhaps how they'd vote depends on exactly how diary deletion would work e.g. on whether diary deletion would automatically close the account; it was unclear what we were voting on this time, since rusty said 'all the "allow deletion" options should be assumed to include closing the account ... possibly, unless "Diaries only" is the winner'.

    so, IMO story and comment deletion have clearly been rejected (at least unless lots of people change their minds), and diary deletion is undecided.  we could have more discussion on whether and exactly how diary deletion should be implemented - possibly leading to a new poll just about diary deletion but with more fancy options.  or we could find something more interesting to discuss (which is the option that i'm inclining to).

    FYI, i voted for no deletion at all.

    No. (none / 0) (#415)
    by reductionist on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 02:59:21 PM EST

    In my experience, people who want to delete what they have said, do so only to obfuscate and confuse.
    Obviously, we can all make mistakes, but that can be indicated and acknowledged and we can move on.
    Sites like this, I believe, could turn out to be a very valuable source of psycho-social research in the future (if they aren't already) and as such should be preserved as much as possible.
    As an example of the richness available, I merely draw your attention to the recent post of the 1994 newsnet debates between Linus Torsvaald and Andrew Whatshisname re the Linux kernel design - which were interesting and enlightening in equal measure.

    Who the hell votes "abstain"?! (none / 0) (#416)
    by reductionist on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 03:04:46 PM EST

    erm, like....well?

    K5 Monthly Update, November 2003 | 414 comments (414 topical, 0 editorial, 3 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!