recommendation

[VolatileAgent]

---

Members do not see this ad.

"someone" was responsible for deleting an important thread yesterday that contained a lot of valuable information. not sure who did this or why, but after the thread was locked yesterday it was then deleted. there was no offensive, vulgar, or demeaning information in that thread. it did not violate SDN's TOS. this is therefore tantamount to censorship.

so, cache your threads, people. i will be from now on.

thanks! nice work, whoever did this. 🙄 (you know who you are.) that was really fair, in light of the entire content and original intent of that thread.

 

[foodcoma]

hehehe i just realized it too...

how do you "Cache" your threads?

 

[Noyac]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. What was the title of the thread?

 

[Bobblehead]

It involved one user calling Volatile out and trying to "prove" his point by citing a bunch of studies, none of which actually supported his position. Volatile posted systematic analyses and rebuttals of each of the citations. This was repeated for another set of studies.

There were some associated other posts near the end before the thread was locked that didn't add much, those could have been deleted.

But I agree. The analyses were valuable and should have been left alone. This clearly was useful heated debate.

 

[jetproppilot]

"someone" was responsible for deleting an important thread yesterday that contained a lot of valuable information. not sure who did this or why, but after the thread was locked yesterday it was then deleted. there was no offensive, vulgar, or demeaning information in that thread. it did not violate SDN's TOS. this is therefore tantamount to censorship.

so, cache your threads, people. i will be from now on.

thanks! nice work, whoever did this. 🙄 (you know who you are.) that was really fair, in light of the entire content and original intent of that thread.

Gotta side with Volatile on this one.

Had it been me, I wouldda been banned (again).

Volatile handled it more-than-eloquently.

And the content was informative.

SO, in true Jet fashion, I ask,

WHAT THE FU.... I MEAN...... WHAT THE HECK????😀

 

[MirrorTodd]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. What was the title of the thread?

It was titled "Volatile, you wanted proof" or something to that effect.

 

[jetproppilot]

It was titled "Volatile, you wanted proof" or something to that effect.

Probably the work of an errant (P.O.S.) administrator.....like...uhhh....Kimberly Cox or Dr Mom....two of my favorite administrators....

 

[Noyac]

Actually the post was removed at the request of the original poster (Mike McKinnon). There were no TOS violoations as you stated. Just a request to remove the thread by the poster which is fine. It was not a case of an administrator taking unnecessary action. Thats really about all I can say about it.
You can consider your point was well made to the poster.

 

[The_Sensei]

Yeah, Mike was embarassed that he got punked out so hard and didn't want a constant reminder of his getting systematically destroyed forever imortalized on SDN.

Wuss.

 

[Gern Blansten]

That does not detract from the fact that it was still useful information refuting a nonsense claim. He obviously felt strongly enough about his position to make the post in the first place and then to continue to try and defend his position despite a very calm and eloquent exposure of his position as undefendable. I believe there is still a lot to be learned from the post and that it should have been left for the education of others who may have had the same feelings that nurses should disregard resident physician orders.

 

[Noyac]

That does not detract from the fact that it was still useful information refuting a nonsense claim. He obviously felt strongly enough about his position to make the post in the first place and then to continue to try and defend his position despite a very calm and eloquent exposure of his position as undefendable. I believe there is still a lot to be learned from the post and that it should have been left for the education of others who may have had the same feelings that nurses should disregard resident physician orders.

True. All I can say is post the information again. Which is why Volatile said to "cache" your posts.

 

[jennyboo]

Hmm. I have my own web site with a pretty large forum. It's tough, but it takes a lot of time to learn how to do it well. It took me about eight years of moderating before I realized that swooping in to delete every hostile-sounding thread only does two things: 1) make you look mean, and 2) kill all the interesting discussions that keep people coming back. Complete and utter calm is not the best thing. Letting people fight it out when they're writing long paragraphs of decent discussion is a good thing.

 

[Bobblehead]

I see no problems with requesting to have your own posts deleted. However, having that result in the deletion of numerous other individuals' posts is wrong. This is akin to suppressing unfavorable study results when it comes time to get your new drug approved by the FDA or selectively mining a dataset to support your hypothesis.

Just because you don't like the answers you got, because you made an ill-conceived argument based on an indefensible position should not permit you to invalidate the work of others who spent a lot of effort refuting your specific claims and arguments.

What the OP and the moderator(s) who colluded in this effort have accomplished is essentially wiping clean a slate that should not have been wiped clean. The OP's argument has been made in the past, it will be made again and the material contained in that thread would be valuable to cite to new posters in the future.

This isn't an issue of free speech, etc. but of editorial responsibility. Just as a journal editor has responsibility to the target audience, the moderators here should have stepped up and exercised some critical reasoning. The OP could have been recommended to post a retraction or been granted the request to delete his OWN posts but not the posts of others.

 

[Noyac]

All points well taken.

For the record, I had NOTHING to do with this. The OP sent a PM to an administrator who acted on it. Which was fair.
There was some valuable info on the thread and the language was civil to say the least. Nobody here acted poorly or inappropriately.
The OP must have been unable to respond intelligently.
Before anyone gets upset with the administrator (hopefully you won't), you should know that this administrator is very level headed and far from heavy-handed. I will see if there is any way to return the info to the forum.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Thanks Noyac!

 

[VolatileAgent]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=4103616&postcount=23

 

[Winged Scapula]

Probably the work of an errant (P.O.S.) administrator.....like...uhhh....Kimberly Cox or Dr Mom....two of my favorite administrators....

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

FYI...I haven't stepped foot into this or anyone else's forum until today when this post (and your continued use of foul language to refer to me and another administrator, as well as spelling my name incorrectly) was brought to my attention.

I have no idea which administrator was responsible for what you and your brethren seem to think a reprehensible act, nor do I really care. But if you have a problem with ME, just bring it to my attention rather than posting in a public forum. But then again, this forum seems to have its own rules.🙄

 

[VolatileAgent]

I have no idea which administrator was responsible for what you and your brethren seem to think a reprehensible act, nor do I really care. But if you have a problem with ME, just bring it to my attention rather than posting in a public forum. But then again, this forum seems to have its own rules.🙄

kim,

i know you're a surgical attending now, and i'm sure that this squabble is really blown out of propotion compared to ultimately what happened between you two. knowing you personally, i'm sure if you and jet met in person you'd get along famously.

i don't think the anesthesia forum has it's own rules. what i objected to initially is that the original thread was closed without my involvement. i placed a lot of work and effort into my rebuttal to the poster's claims, and that was summarily deleted by one request by the OP who was apparently embarrassed by his lack of ability to cogently respond. it was addressed and rectified. case closed.

the road to disaster is often paved with good intentions. all i would ask in the future is, before a mod deletes an entire thread, try to look through the content of that thread and surmise what is going on, if any TOS violations occurred (in this case, they hadn't), and not simply fulfill a request because someone asked. this is indeed a public forum, and sometimes people don't like what is said in response to their claims. this does not entitle the person who makes the original claim to censor the response if they don't like it. we can't have a discussion if only one side, in a provocative manner this time i might add, is allowed to be given voice - and then having the ensuing discussion quelled when the resulting response is embarrassing or humiliating to the OP. there are lessons to be learned here on multiple levels.

thanks again for all your hard, volunteer work you're doing here. as i said before, it's a job i don't envy or want. i know and believe that you weren't involved in this initially. and, i don't think this forum plays by a separate set of rules. at least, i hope not.

 

[Winged Scapula]

kim,

i know you're a surgical attending now, and i'm sure that this squabble is really blown out of propotion compared to ultimately what happened between you two. knowing you personally, i'm sure if you and jet met in person you'd get along famously.

i don't think the anesthesia forum has it's own rules. what i objected to initially is that the original thread was closed without my involvement. i placed a lot of work and effort into my rebuttal to the poster's claims, and that was summarily deleted by one request by the OP who was apparently embarrassed by his lack of ability to cogently respond. it was addressed and rectified. case closed.

the road to disaster is often paved with good intentions. all i would ask in the future is, before a mod deletes an entire thread, try to look through the content of that thread and surmise what is going on, if any TOS violations occurred (in this case, they hadn't), and not simply fulfill a request because someone asked. this is indeed a public forum, and sometimes people don't like what is said in response to their claims. this does not entitle the person who makes the original claim to censor the response if they don't like it. we can't have a discussion if only one side, in a provocative manner this time i might add, is allowed to be given voice - and then having the ensuing discussion quelled when the resulting response is embarrassing or humiliating to the OP. there are lessons to be learned here on multiple levels.

thanks again for all your hard, volunteer work you're doing here. as i said before, it's a job i don't envy or want. i know and believe that you weren't involved in this initially. and, i don't think this forum plays by a separate set of rules. at least, i hope not.

VA---

I totally agree. The situation has become "volatile" between myself and regulars of this forum, as evidenced by me being blamed for something which I had no knowledge of and wasn't involved in. It comes with the territory of being a Moderator.

In addition, I agree that complete threads should not be deleted unless the Mod has the permission of EVERYONE who has posted there. Often a Mod or Admin will get a request from a user to delete a thread they started - for a multitude of reasons - and while it is tempting to help the OP, one cannot delete the threads of the other users. The deletion of an ENTIRE thread should be used VERY sparingly and is less preferable than deleting/editing or otherwise altering the thread or simply closing it to further responses. Posts can be deleted when a reasonable request is made (ie, the OP has unwittingly posted personal details allowing them to be identified), but the best action is to allow the USERS to edit their posts if they chose. All users have the ability to Edit or even Delete posts they've made - they can't delete an entire thread (only a Mod or Admin can), nor should they.

Your disappointment is reasonable but I cannot comment specifically on the thread in question as it would be inappropriate for me to do so without more knowledge of the thread and the Moderator's intent. Moderating forums such as these is an extremely difficult enterprise and we've all made mistakes - either by being too lenient or too hardnosed about the rules. And occasionally, we're just tired or cranky and make bad decisions which we come to regret. For the most part, I think we do a pretty fantastic job.

As for the Anesthesia forum having its own rules, even some of the Mods here have stated it does. Comments allowed herewith would never fly in other forums - its been discussed extensively at the Moderator and Administrator level - and for the time being, you guys are allowed to seek your own harmony. I wouldn't tolerate it in my forums, but then again, we surgeons are a much more lovable and easygoing bunch than anesthesiologists! 😉

Again, thank you for your comments and I'm sorry that you had this experience. Unfortunately, since I was in no way involved its not my place to rectify the situation, but as always, if a user is unhappy with the actions of a Moderator, they can address the problem with Lee, Dr. Mom or myself.