Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Forum thread "disappeared?" — Parallax Forums

Forum thread "disappeared?"

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
edited 2015-08-06 02:39 in General Discussion
A thread what was started regarding the desire for a separate category for forum issues and for unsinking a referent thread seems to have disappeared. Although I might take issue with the tone of that thread, I would take greater issue with threads being deleted by the admins simply because they raise issues deemed inconvenient for public consumption. Without making unwarranted assumptions about the fate of that thread, I would like to hear from the admins about their policy regarding wholesale thread deletion. This is important stuff! I think it's vital that forumistas be reassured that anonymous censorship will not be a policy of this forum going forward. If a thread or post is deemed offensive, the nature of the offense needs to be aired publicly and the offending thread either locked or sunk, not deleted.

OTOH, if I'm mistaken about the fate of that thread, my apologies. As forum activity begins to increase again, it's become more difficult to track every thread.

Thanks,
-Phil

Comments

  • It's sunk but not gone.

    I think I'm having a change of heart about sinking threads. As long as we're told it's being sunk it might not be such a bad think.

    I'm kind of glad to see that thread sink to the bottom of the pile.
  • So this is the extent of Parallax and Phil's relationship... I had imagined something entirely different.
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2015-08-06 04:09
    Sapphire wrote:
    "This one?"
    No, that's not the one. I can't find the one I'm referring to.
    xanadu wrote:
    So this is the extent of Parallax and Phil's relationship... I had imagined something entirely different.
    No, of course it's not. But when friends see friends doing something they might disagree with, it's their responsibility to say something. That's all. Besides, if you read my entire post, you would know that I'm more after clarification than confrontation.

    -Phil
  • No, that's not the one.

    Do you know how long ago the thread was started? Do you know who started it?

    Was the thread from before the time of the first thread sinkings?

  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2015-08-06 04:15
    The thread was started this morning by Wildatheart.

    Please note: I could be wrong about this whole thing. But recent events have caused my vigilance to become more acute regarding policy matters.

    -Phil
  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,173
    The thread was started this morning by Wildatheart.

    Please note: I could be wrong about this whole thing. But recent events have caused my vigilance to become more acute regarding policy matters.

    -Phil

    I do not recall seeing a separate thread, but Wildatheart has commented in the one linked to above ?

  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2015-08-06 04:37
    Nope. That's not the thread I'm referring to. But in the thread he started, he referred to that other thread. IIRC, the thread in question amounted to a lone post without follow-on comments.

    -Phil
  • I saw that thread. I had assumed the original poster deleted it. If not...
  • Sapphire wrote:
    "This one?"
    No, that's not the one. I can't find the one I'm referring to.
    xanadu wrote:
    So this is the extent of Parallax and Phil's relationship... I had imagined something entirely different.
    No, of course it's not. But when friends see friends doing something they might disagree with, it's their responsibility to say something. That's all. Besides, if you read my entire post, you would know that I'm more after clarification than confrontation.

    -Phil

    Phil,

    I never meant you are confrontational. I've been reading your posts for years, it would be idiotic to say that.
  • The thread Phil is referring to was indeed started by myself. It appears to have been deleted in its entirety without explanation. In that thread I simply requested that frank freedman’s thread, linked above, be unsunk. Frank’s request did not pertain to major “forum issues”. (Courtney Jacobs responded to jmg that it was a minor matter to separate the “forum issues” from the General Discussion, but they arbitrarily – without explanation - elected not to do so.) Frank was simply asking to have the General Discussion cleansed of the ongoing forum issues that we all have to sort through every time we open the General Discussion forum.

    My deleted post said nothing more and nothing less. In addition to the 2 respectable words I used in the body I can be faulted for not having used the words “Please” and “Thank you”.

    Here’s the problem… xanadu worte above, “So this is the extent of Parallax and Phil’s relationship… I had imagined something entirely different.” Having read several “Official” responses to Phil and SEVERAL other KEY CONTRIBUTING forumistas, I too have been in shock to have read many of the responses to their well thought out and well presented forum suggestions. Quite frankly, based on the tenor, increasingly terse responses, and lack of clarification from the “Officials” I don’t know what to think about Parallax’s relationship with many of the key contributing forumistas.

    Parallax has asked us to be patient and understanding as we all work through this transition, I ask only the same from them. At times, we need a little clarification and open minded debate about the matters that are presented. I believe that’s only fair to ask on behalf of those that put forth the effort to maintain the high standards that we’re all used to here.
  • potatoheadpotatohead Posts: 10,261
    edited 2015-08-07 16:40
    Hope springs eternal
  • This forum has apparently sunk to a new low.
  • I have done my best to remain neutral and only speaking up when I needed to express my view. Of course I have a lot of things that I would like to say, but I am making a serious attempt to not fuel the fire. However at this point, I believe some of the damage is irreparable, but I could be wrong, and I certainly hope that I am wrong.

    Right or wrong, I certainly believe that Parallax should reevaluate their stances and policies regarding forum members and their input, because it appears to me that MANY are disgruntled.

    The customer is ALWAYS right, except for when they are WRONG :)
  • Oh gosh. It appears that the match I struck to cast light on a certain matter has fallen on dry tinder again. Now that it's been verified that the thread in question did disappear, let's just keep cool and wait for an official response as to why and how.

    Thanks,
    -Phil
  • I don't plan on writing much else about it. It's either going to improve or not. Hoping it does.

    My post was coming anyway. And there is a lot of dry tinder (which is why my post was coming anyway). Not on you Phil.



  • The thread in question was deleted because it was a duplicate of one posted earlier and answered by Parallax.

    -MM
  • PublisonPublison Posts: 12,366
    edited 2015-08-06 16:18
    Ok friends, an explanation. The thread that wildatheart created was titled:

    "Can we have a separate forum issue section? thread needs to be unsunk"

    At the time, I saw it as a duplicate post to Frank's post, which are not allowed under forum rules.

    I was going to PM wildatheart indicating that the discussion was going to be deleted because of that, but forgot. I apologize for that.

    I think the mechanisms are in place to report forum issues, and see the reported issue in the announcement section. I know you can not respond directly to those posts, but you can see if your issue got logged.

    Sorry to produce such a stir, but I didn't see any reason to rehash something that had been already addressed by Parallax.

    So blame me, not Courtney, (a girl with a lot of stuff on her plate). :)
  • No need to apologize, Publison. You have our gratitude for acting as a moderator on this Forum.
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2015-08-06 16:48
    Ah, so. Thanks for the explanation, guys! I, too, am grateful for Publison's measured and considerate moderation.

    Thread-sinking does add a new dimension to what is considered to be a duplicate post, however. If a thread is sunk, but a new wrinkle arises that makes the topic current again, it's only natural to start a new thread on that topic so that it will be visible. Obviously, we don't want folks continuing to beat dead horses, but I think that the intention behind the "dup" thread needs some consideration when making a decision to keep it, sink it, lock it, or delete it.

    This is not to criticize the action taken in this case, only to point out that the landscape has changed a little and that thread-sinking has created a disturbance in the Force, possibly entailing a modified decision tree for moderation.

    The mod squad is welcome to sink this thread if they want. :)

    Thanks,
    -Phil
  • PublisonPublison Posts: 12,366
    edited 2015-08-06 17:15
    Ah, so. Thanks for the explanation, guys! I, too, am grateful for Publison's measured and considerate moderation.

    Thread-sinking does add a new dimension to what is considered to be a duplicate post, however. If a thread is sunk, but a new wrinkle arises that makes the topic current again, it's only natural to start a new thread on that topic so that it will be visible. Obviously, we don't want folks continuing to beat dead horses, but I think that the intention behind the "dup" thread needs some consideration when making a decision to keep it, sink it, lock it, or delete it.

    This is not to criticize the action taken in this case, only to point out that the landscape has changed a little and that thread-sinking has created a disturbance in the Force, possibly entailing a modified decision tree for moderation.



    Thanks,
    -Phil

    I think we are all learning new things here, moderation tools are totally new.
    The mod squad is welcome to sink this thread if they want. :)

    OK, I'll be Michael Cole, Courtney will be Peggy Lipton; who will be Clarence Williams III. :)

  • TorTor Posts: 2,010
    On another forum I frequent, duplicate threads are simply locked with an explanation (and will therefore sink "naturally", no concrete boots needed). This works very well and causes no grumbling.

  • Tor wrote: »
    On another forum I frequent, duplicate threads are simply locked with an explanation (and will therefore sink "naturally", no concrete boots needed). This works very well and causes no grumbling.

    That is a very good suggestion.

  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,173
    Publison wrote: »
    So blame me, not Courtney, (a girl with a lot of stuff on her plate). :)
    No one is blaming Courtney, but you can expect the community to question decisions and policy, that seem to shoot Parallax in the foot.

  • jmg wrote: »
    Publison wrote: »
    So blame me, not Courtney, (a girl with a lot of stuff on her plate). :)
    No one is blaming Courtney, but you can expect the community to question decisions and policy, that seem to shoot Parallax in the foot.

    You are correct that this is a community and questions are always welcome.

  • koehlerkoehler Posts: 598
    edited 2015-08-09 23:04
    Since the ability to sink threads was first found out,
    its been noted numerous times that a simple lock is the norm.




  • koehler wrote: »
    Since the ability to sink threads was first found out,
    its been noted numerous times that a simple lock is the norm.

    Good point Koehler.

    As the OP's thread objective seems to have been met, I have edited a few inappropriate comments from this thread and hit the lock button.



This discussion has been closed.