Posted by zenhussy on December 30, 2003, at 11:35:14
In reply to Re: uncivil subject line, posted by Dr. Bob on December 24, 2003, at 10:05:36
>>I was wondering if you might be able to remove the subject line because it is kind of inflammatory.
>I know what you mean, but I don't like to edit posts. Plus it's more involved to edit the subject line than the body. Plus, thankfully, there seems to be at least a truce. Plus it should roll over in a day or two?
Please! You cannot be serious about this answer. In the past you have ripped posts off this board so fast it isn't funny. And people making peace never had an effect before on whether or not you removed a post. Why now?
The following examples are very confusing as to just what constitutes your post removal/deletion policy. Very fuzzy and vague. --zh
January 13, 2002: >As I understand clinical research, when patients are chosen to participate in a study, first they must meet certain criteria in order to be considered as possible candidates. Once they meet those criteria, however, shouldn't anyone who meets those criteria be allowed to participate, regardless of their point of view? I understand that you cannot eliminate people from a clinical study just because you fear they might cause the results to be skewed in a particular way. Dr. Bob, are you eliminating clinical subjects/deleting posts that will cause an outcome that is opposite to the one you are counting on or hoping for? Are you manipulating the data?
That's a good question. I think it depends on what's being studied.
For example, say drug A is known to have a particular side effect, but drug B is known to reduce that side effect. So you might want to study using them together. Is it manipulating the data to allow the use of drug B? If you're just studying drug A, it would be, but not if you're studying the combination.
A separate, though IMO also relevant, issue is that you wouldn't want to endanger people by just letting them have side effects...
So, to return to the board, this isn't a study of a free-for-all community, it's a study of a community that's hosted in a certain way. And its results won't be applicable to free-for-all communities, or even necessarily to communities in general. Does that make sense?
March 3, 2002: I have to admit, I deleted it. In retrospect, though, I should've said something, sorry!...My thinking was, things had already been stirred up enough on that thread...
March 3, 2002: In truth, I don't like to delete posts, so I'm not sure I should take credit for that. Probably either I or the program made a mistake. :-)
April 8, 2002: >Every now and then it appears that you've deleted a post. Is this actually what's happening, or have I misinterpreted it? If it is, how do you decide when a post needs to be deleted?
It actually is happening. But there may also be times when you're misinterpreting. :-)
The main reason I delete posts is when they seem to me particularly disruptive. Or if I've already asked for a thread to be redirected...
November 26, 2002: I understand what you're saying, but I don't like to delete posts. Partly because this way "offers the advantages of clarifying the limits for others, modeling conflict resolution, diminishing any paranoia about activity "behind the scenes," and allowing others to contribute to the process" (from that CyberPsychology article).