I'll respond to an OP of any quality as long as a thought comes along that I think might help. — Moliere

Good attitude, I think. But there are Guidelines to follow, doncha know?!

I didn't expect it to lead to a member self-deleting, but I hope they come back. — Moliere

Sounds like it was probably the final straw. I'm just interested to know the book's title and author.
Can you remember? Or have access to deleted posts?

Nope.

OK.

It is extreme, and inconsiderate to members who have engaged in good faith, as it makes a nonsense of threads when one side of a dialogue is removed. I am surprised it is allowed; I would suggest that in general it should not be allowed, as it somewhat undermines the value of the site as an archive record.

Members need the ability to delete the odd post they might make in haste or anger, but to delete one's entire contribution is to destroy not just one's own work, but the full meaning of the contributions of one's interlocutors. And that is a deliberate destructive and malicious act. — unenlightened

I complete agree. :100:

NB: Fwiw, I've been away from TPF involuntarily (due to a severe medical emergency) since early May, about 6 weeks, and as I recover I'll gradually resume participating as before. This is not the place so I will post more on my situation elsewhere as soon as I'm up to it. These last weeks the prospect of leaving behind years of discussions and interactions on these fora has reminded me that sooner or later this will be the case unless I self-delete my entire post history which is unimagineable to me at the moment.

@Amity

Yes. I agree.

Some acts are done without thinking through all the consequences.
The act deliberate but also spontaneous and not necessarily directed towards other posters.
It is also self-destructive.

Yes, moderators, I agree with the others that it’s a really bad idea to delete member’s posts en masse whether or not they have requested it. Once something is posted here it no longer belongs to the poster, it belongs to all of us. As others have noted, it irreparably damages other people’s contributions to the threads involved. Beyond that there have been wonderful, fascinating, moving, brilliant posts here on the forum over the years I wouldn’t want to see erased.

Please don’t make it a policy that this can be done in the future.

:up:

But note that in this case he had spent many hours editing out the content of his posts. I don't know how far back he got but he got a good chunk of it. There’s no way I would have taken the time to go through the change log and reverse all those edits.

I think that’s why I submitted to his request to remove his account and all of its content, which I wouldn't normally have done and which I now mildly regret.

:up: :up:

I wouldn't normally have done and which I now mildly regret. — Jamal

If I remember correctly, @Wayfarer once suggested you put a time limit on how long someone could edit a post. I didn’t like the idea because I like to go back to my six-year-old posts and fix the grammar and spelling.

Yes, your grammar and spelling were pretty bad 6 years ago. I’ve definitely noticed an improvement.

I would suggest that in general it should not be allowed — unenlightened

As I understand it, in some jurisdictions users have a legal right to have their posts and identity removed from the website if they so wish. Most forum software make it possible for administrators to do a full deletion for this reason.

As I understand it, in some jurisdictions users have a legal right to have their posts and identity removed from the website if they so wish. — Leontiskos

IF they didn't agree to legally binding terms at the moment of account creation. Which most all forum software requires (not for the benefit of the forum host or users mind you but the software company itself).

"All content submitted becomes reproducible, archiveable, yadda yadda" Not too sure on all that really but from what I've seen.

Argument being, posting on some random website is not a requirement of life or a human right. I.E., you went to some dude's house because you wanted to (of your own volition), and he said, "oh, sure, you can come in if you do X and Y but not Z." Would you like to come in then yes or no? And the dude said yes so that's all there is to it. :100:

There's a free speech thing to "necessary" social media like Google and Facebook which some food and lodging companies or services either explicitly require or effectively require to utilize but for something like a private forum, I'm not so sure.

Like I could literally take $20 and buy theREALphilosophyforum.com, or something and start my own forum if I had the mind to. And that would be my right. So no one is deprived of some intrinsic right in such the scenario described above.

These last weeks the prospect of leaving behind years of discussions and interactions on these fora has reminded me that sooner or later this will be the case unless I self-delete my entire post history which is unimagineable to me at the moment. — 180 Proof

I would think if you were to delete all your posts, you would do it consistent with your style and cross through them all.

A joke, my friend. Glad you're back and hope you're feeling better.

See for example Article 17 of the GDPR.

Sure, if that's what it says that's what it says. But of course some legal contracts (yes, those things most people don't read that in fact legally serves as if they did) do consider posts made public communication, even so-called "Private" messages. At least the term that there is no such reasonable expectation of actual "privacy" on a private forum. A webmaster can view private PMs if he wishes, due to the nature of the underlying terms.

Yeah, if I'm some amateur web developer and I make a forum with no terms whatsoever that you literally just punch in the web URL and click "Post", that probably applies.

But no matter how thorough those terms are, it can't supersede the right of two people to make a contract that said work of party A belongs to said venue or otherwise party B. It's simply not possible.

- I don't know of any forums that are prepared to fight the legal battles required to oppose the colloquial sense of Article 17 of the GDPR. In theory they could fight those battles, sure.

The point here is that although it would be nice to retain a user's posts even against their will, there are significant legal impediments to doing so, at least in many countries. One possible workaround is to purge their identity and username but retain the posts, but even this would generally break backlinks and discombobulate the conversation history.

As I understand it, in some jurisdictions users have a legal right to have their posts and identity removed from the website if they so wish. Most forum software make it possible for administrators to do a full deletion for this reason. — Leontiskos

The right to change or erase the past is a dangerous nonsense, beloved by dictators and warned against by George Orwell.

I didn't say that.

- I've been publicly in favor of limiting the ability to edit posts to < 5 minutes for a long time. I'm pretty sure Plush Forums doesn't provide that middle-ground option.

And I think the GDPR is too strong on that front, but I don't actually know the legal history of that article.

All posts will eventually fall into a massive bit bucket that will collapse in on itself and become a wormhole.

I don't know of any forums that are prepared to fight the legal battles required to oppose the colloquial sense of Article 17 of the GDPR. In theory they could fight those battles, sure. — Leontiskos

If in the jurisdictional province subject to the aforementioned document ruled binding by the relevant governing body, one is not allowed to administrate a website where communication is possible without being subject to GDPR, then that's correct. Terrifying, yet correct.

The argument would be, there is no battle to fight if the war is simply considered irrelevant. The terms (might, I haven't checked this particular forum software of website's specific stipulations) say "everything is public communication". Article 17 is specifically about "personal data." Which they (anyone who signs up for an account to post) agreed is a non-existent concept on SiteXYZ.com, for example. I'll erase their legal first and last name or address if they were so foolish to post such, but beyond that, two people have a right to make a contract and anything that makes that impossible deprives one's right of participating in society and the legal due process.

two people have a right to make a contract — Outlander

I would say that all sorts of laws and positive rights restrict one's right to contract. The GDPR is not unique in this.

But I am really not up on Terms of Service (ToS) law. I know it's a complicated area.