14 replies to this topic

[pacificquay]

A couple of other forums I'm on have a good feature whereby once a post is no longer the most recent in a thread, it can no longer be edited by the poster.

 

Would be worth adopting this here to prevent things being changed once they've been replied to.

[Marklar]

And what if you need to edit your post and the next reply in the thread isn't refering to your post? (can happen pretty quickly on a day with a lot traffic). Deleting it and write it again or what? I see no need for that. If you want to prevent confusion then it is more adviseable to quote posts you are replying to

Edited by Marklar, 15 August 2016 - 11:53.

[Zmeej]

Limitations on the ability to edit my posts (aside from those in the Archive) would upset me, if not deeply, then at least significantly. IIRC, a time limit for edits was adopted at one point, but I'm very glad it was dropped.

 

Of course, I'm notorious for editing for a long time, and repeatedly, but see no reason why the mere fact that someone has replied to or quoted an earlier version is in and of itself a reason to stop.

 

However, to avoid confusion and annoyance, have taken to composing longer posts or those which I can foresee will take considerable thought and revision offline, then posting the result, but this doesn't guarantee that I won't edit it, only that it's less likely.

 

Anyway, also appreciate the opportunity to correct my posts when someone points out an error, or even suggests that it was unnecessarily harsh.

 

No offence, pacificquay, but consider the notion "to prevent things being changed once they've been replied to" kinda authoritarian. Also, it has the odour of turning discussions into games of "gotcha," which are, at best, puerile.

 

My (frequently edited ) two cents.

Edited by Zmeej, 15 August 2016 - 14:32.

[Vitesse2]

A couple of other forums I'm on have a good feature whereby once a post is no longer the most recent in a thread, it can no longer be edited by the poster.

 

Would be worth adopting this here to prevent things being changed once they've been replied to.

*Puts admin hat on.*

 

That's not a feature available in the board software. We can only set limits on editing by the number of minutes after the post.

 

Which in Zmeej's case would have to be at least 525600 ...

[Zmeej]

 

but also

Edited by Zmeej, 15 August 2016 - 18:43.

[Kristian]

Yeah immediate blocks on editing wouldn't work here, as some threads can get 10 posts a minute in busy times...

One forum I'm on blocks editing after 4 hours. That seems to work.

[pacificquay]

I think a time limit would be sensible - protects the integrity of the forum

[Buttoneer]

From what?

If your absolute concern is that someone might change their argument to make your subsequent response look odd, then quoting the post removes that risk. Most discussion here doesn't warrant that sort of level of analysis and if it does then the participants tend to have more integrity. If someone changes a post to make your subsequent one look foolish, perhaps that's just trolling and reportable?

I'm not at all convinced this sort of restriction has great benefit, but I can see how it would be irritating to those who do like to go back and clarify an opening post, for example. There are many threads in existence where the original post is updated based on new information shared in later pages. The top pinned thread in Racing Comments being the obvious one.

[Zmeej]

[KWSN - DSM]

I prefer not touching post unless for little trivial seplling errors. A thread lives on, posts and repostes are made, when need for an edit quote yourself and clarify / edit the part which need editing / clarifying and the posting / reposting can continue with everyone knowing who meant what, what they mean now, and what now needs to be challenged.

 

Putting on my Old Europe Civilty hat... one should most assuredly NOT be revisionistic as to what one said earlier.

 

[Zmeej]

KWSN

 

Putting on my Old Europe Civilty hat... one should most assuredly NOT be revisionistic as to what one said earlier.

 

Agree.

 

Old Europe Civility is in tune with the way of the Brahmin, which is in tune with the way of the Buddha, which is in tune with the way of Confucius, which is in tune with the way of the First Nations warrior/medicine man. (Apologies for my ignorance of the wisdom of Saharan and subSaharan Africa, etc. )

 

To the extent that I have ever been revisionistic in my posts, it has been to incorporate indications by others that I was in error (and thus to adjust either specifics or tendencies of argument), and to revise away from harshness some expressions I allowed myself.

 

To revise one's post to make it appear that one said one thing instead of another to frustrate another's argument is, IMHO, bad pool.

Edited by Zmeej, 17 August 2016 - 00:32.

[saudoso]

I just can't see the reason for that. People can edit their posts just as anyone can post a false quote. This isn't a court of law, it's just a way to waste time.

[jcbc3]

My pet peeve is people quoting someone and then editing in the quote.

[Marklar]

What I always wanted to know: why are mods able to edit their posts without it being displayed that they edited their posts? (And sometimes it is displayed for some reasons)

Edited by Marklar, 18 August 2016 - 06:20.

[Vitesse2]

What I always wanted to know: why are mods able to edit their posts without it being displayed that they edited their posts? (And sometimes it is displayed for some reasons)

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

 

More seriously, the 'edited by' message is off by default for mods and admins. That's mainly so that we can tidy up threads after problems - a post might be partly responding to one which has been deleted, for example. So, if you had made a comment about a removed troll post as part of a longer message, we would silently edit it out, without leaving the stigma of it being edited by a mod, which might cause some people to think 'What did Marklar say there? Who was he being rude about?' That way lies paranoia ...

 

We might edit a post if someone has been evading the swearing filter. Or any of a hundred other reasons We can turn it on for individual posts if we want though, so if you do see that, it usually means a thread has had major surgery and a reason may very well be displayed. Or we may just have ticked the box accidentally!!

Edited by Vitesse2, 18 August 2016 - 07:23.
additions