moderated Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion


 

Today there was hella confusion in my group until I figured out what happened through the logs. A member deleted a message, which apparently was the whole topic, resulting in the deletion of the topic, and then resent it. People reading via email received duplicates, and people reading via email and web were massively confused.

Allowing people to delete and resend messages creates a loophole around the disabling of editing messages, which my group has done. Instead of editing a message, which members can no longer do, enterprising, creative members have figured out that they can simply "delete" (I use quotes because, of course, the message is never deleted from emails) their message and resend it. This has the EXACT SAME EFFECT as editing a message, which my group - as well as this very beta group - has disabled for good reasons, including the email-archive mismatch and resulting confusion, and the receiving of essentially duplicate emails by group members reading by email.

I understand from, prior conversations here about it, that some think that legally, members are allowed to delete their messages. IANAL but I disagree. Users grant to groups.io, via the TOU, a "perpetual and irrevocable" right to publish their content  (quoted below). "Irrevocable" would seem to mean that users cannot revoke from groups.io the right to publish their content; i.e., they cannot unilaterally delete it.

So I think that deletion should be disabled for the same reasons editing can be disabled (email/archive mismatch and duplicate messages, possibly even a flurry of them, as has happened in my group at various points when overzealous members keep trying to "clarify" or, in essence, edit their posts). The confusion is worse when a member deletes a whole topic, which it seems they can do when their message is the only one in it.

By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Groups.io and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sub licensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content in connection with the operation of the Service. 
Emphasis added.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 02:45 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I think that deletion should be disabled
Typo: I meant that it should be disable-able in a group.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Ro
 

Absolutely....   Jeez people will find ways around the prohibition of editing wont they.   I dont use moderation much, but that would be the only other way to prevent such people from deleting and then re posting.   I prefer not to moderate people if at all possible.   If a person wants a delete for personal reasons, nothing wrong with them asking the owner/moderator to delete it.

Ro


 

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:15 PM, Ro wrote:
I prefer not to moderate people if at all possible. 
Same here.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 04:15 PM, Ro wrote:
that would be the only other way to prevent such people from deleting and then re posting.  
Actually it wouldn't stop them from deleting, anyway. Just re-posting.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


KWKloeber
 

Can a member post a "new" topic that is identical to another topic? 
Or they could just insignificantly change it to "edit" and resend the original message.

-ken


 

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 07:18 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
Can a member post a "new" topic that is identical to another topic? 
Actually, I just tested this and it turns out they can. I would have thought groups.io would have threaded them together, but it doesn't. I'm not sure what the goal would be and don't quite understand your message, but yes, they can do that, it turns out. It seems to be a separate issue, but I wonder whether this is the behavior we want/
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 01:27 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 07:18 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
Can a member post a "new" topic that is identical to another topic? 
Actually, I just tested this and it turns out they can. I would have thought groups.io would have threaded them together, but it doesn't. I'm not sure what the goal would be and don't quite understand your message, but yes, they can do that, it turns out. It seems to be a separate issue, but I wonder whether this is the behavior we want/
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

J, I have to agree with you.

I understood from a comment Mark posted recently that they would have been "threaded" together as long as the topic name had been active "recently". That is, after some period of time it is allowed to make a new topic with the same topic label.

I also tested and confirmed that I can make two new topics with the same name. I guess I either that functionality was changed or it is broken or I misunderstood some part of the explanation.

--
Gerald


 

Ken and Gerald, I will start a separate thread about your issue. I’d rather keep this one on topic of allowing disabling of deletion.


On Dec 17, 2018, at 11:08 PM, Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 01:27 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 07:18 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
Can a member post a "new" topic that is identical to another topic? 
Actually, I just tested this and it turns out they can. I would have thought groups.io would have threaded them together, but it doesn't. I'm not sure what the goal would be and don't quite understand your message, but yes, they can do that, it turns out. It seems to be a separate issue, but I wonder whether this is the behavior we want/
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

J, I have to agree with you.

I understood from a comment Mark posted recently that they would have been "threaded" together as long as the topic name had been active "recently". That is, after some period of time it is allowed to make a new topic with the same topic label.

I also tested and confirmed that I can make two new topics with the same name. I guess I either that functionality was changed or it is broken or I misunderstood some part of the explanation.

--
Gerald

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Chris Jones
 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Ro wrote:
If a person wants a delete for personal reasons, nothing wrong with them asking the owner/moderator to delete it.
I agree entirely. I am somewhat puzzled by the facilty whereby members can delete posts; given that once a message is posted it is emailed immediately to those who read their traffic that way, and while the post can be deleted from the archive it cannot be deleted from everyone's Inboxes.

I would support message deletion being available to owners/moderators only, albeit settable at a group level.

Chris


Jim Higgins
 

Received from Chris Jones via Groups.Io at 12/18/2018 10:15 AM UTC:

I would support message deletion being available to owners/moderators only, albeit settable at a group level.

+1

Jim H


 

Deletion has also created confusing situations in the archive, wherein the top post of the thread is gone but the responses are there and are meaningless. E.g., top post is gone and the thread consists of a bunch of posts to the effect of "I agree" or "I disagree." Agree or disagree with WHAT? etc.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

J,

What if, instead of completely nuking the message when someone deletes it, I replace it with something that just says 'This message has been deleted'?

Thanks,
Mark


 

Mark, 

I dunno. Maybe not a bad idea. I’ll think about the possible ramifications as I sit in the dentist’s chair during the next hour and a half. Take my mind off things. :-)


On Dec 18, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

J,

What if, instead of completely nuking the message when someone deletes it, I replace it with something that just says 'This message has been deleted'?

Thanks,
Mark

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Jim Higgins
 

Received from Mark Fletcher at 12/18/2018 05:29 PM UTC:

What if, instead of completely nuking the message when someone deletes it, I replace it with something that just says 'This message has been deleted'?

That seems like a useful idea, but it would also be nice to have an option for group owners to turn off the ability of subscribers to delete messages.

Jim H


 

Mark,

I stand on the side of preserving a member's option to delete any or all of their contributions (Messages, Photos, Files, etc.).

I understand J's point about the license terms in Groups.io's TOS, but that's one of the few things I'm dissatisfied with about Groups.io. I much preferred the Yahoo TOS in that regard: it explicitly terminates the license if either the user or Yahoo deletes the content.

Shal


 

A couple of thoughts pre-dentist:

This would alleviates the rootless thread problem in the archive, but does not help with members essentially using the delete feature to get around disabled editing of posts. They can still send a do-over afterwards.

And the loophole is actually worse than the editing feature, because their re-send would be out of chrono order in the archive (as well as in email, of course). That's unfixable except by going in by hand and copy/pasting (as I did today with the screwed-up thread yesterday).

And members still receive essentially duplicate emails when reading by email (just as they do with edited posts).]

If you think about the legalities and the practicalities, members who are no longer in a group can't delete their posts except by asking the moderator (or support) to delete them. They can't touch their posts themselves any more. And a moderator can easily remove any member. Therefore, right NOW mods have the ability to prevent any one individual from removing their posts by simply removing them from the group. I'm using this as an argument to say that we already, in one sense, can prevent people from deleting. I'm not saying we should use this ability because it's clearly impractical. But I'm saying that any *legal* argument that we shouldn't allow disablement of deletion is already in the toilet, because we already allow it under the circumstance of the member being gone from the group. (And furthermore, as I said before, the TOU already seems to rule out any such legal requirement.)

NOW I will go to the dentist. ;p
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

Shal,
Remember that after a member leaves, or is removed from, a group, they can no longer delete their posts anyway. Same as in Y!G.

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:48 AM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
Mark,

I stand on the side of preserving a member's option to delete any or all of their contributions (Messages, Photos, Files, etc.).

I understand J's point about the license terms in Groups.io's TOS, but that's one of the few things I'm dissatisfied with about Groups.io. I much preferred the Yahoo TOS in that regard: it explicitly terminates the license if either the user or Yahoo deletes the content.

Shal


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

Which means that if  the TOU is changed to legally allow groups.io members to force groups.io to take down any of their content, at any time, then groups.io is in a really untenable position because we already don't do that.

If a member has a valid reason for wanting to remove content, they can ask a moderator (or, worst case, support) to remove it. Allowing disablement of deletion would serve the more common situations of people just trying to delete and resend (in essence, editing their posts).

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:52 AM J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
Shal,
Remember that after a member leaves, or is removed from, a group, they can no longer delete their posts anyway. Same as in Y!G.

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:48 AM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
Mark,

I stand on the side of preserving a member's option to delete any or all of their contributions (Messages, Photos, Files, etc.).

I understand J's point about the license terms in Groups.io's TOS, but that's one of the few things I'm dissatisfied with about Groups.io. I much preferred the Yahoo TOS in that regard: it explicitly terminates the license if either the user or Yahoo deletes the content.

Shal


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

J,

Remember that after a member leaves, or is removed from, a group, they can no longer delete their posts anyway. Same as in Y!G.

I know that.

I also remember that, back when Y!Groups had support, Customer Care would sometimes ask the group owner to let the member back in to delete their content. Or Customer Care would do it on the former member's behalf. That was part of the "your content is yours" philosophy that many people appreciated.

Shal