Aug 20, 2010, 4:08 PM
Post #101 of 181
(5576 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
Re: [sidepull] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(2 ratings)
Can't Post
sidepull wrote:
I'm sorry if someone else has made the point I'm about to make, I already had to slog through three other threads just to understand the genesis behind all of this blather. So here's my opinion (and if it reinforces, reiterates, or repeats that of other's, then good):
This poll (and it's front page endorsement from the mod's) misses the crux of the issue: the role of the mod's and the ability to apologize.
Had a mod focused more on serving the members of RC.com and simply just apologized all of this would have stopped. Sure, other members of RC.com could have backed off too, that would have been civil, but that isn't their role. In contrast, mod's are given power to serve the needs of the RC.com community, not to serve their needs. If a mod oversteps his or her bounds and gets called on it, they should just apologize and let it go.
Put more simply: I voted for "no change" in the poll. If it had listed an option for "help mod's understand their role better" I would have checked that box instead.
Best of luck to everyone. Hopefully there is some sort of collective learning and catharsis that comes from this (though I doubt it).
The true "genesis" of this poll actually goes back much farther than recent events and is only following them so closely because if I had tried to raise the issue at some random point in the past, it would not have generated sitewide attention. In short, this discussion is simply capitalizing on recent events and does not directly stem from them.
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example. That has nothing at all to do with the mods or their role on here. The mods are unlikely to be the catalyst for the next tempertantrum that results in post deleting either.
I don't know if votes can be changed or not but you might want to reconsider the issue on it's own merits and not as it relates to this one incident.
Editeded to add - Nope, just looked and votes cannot be changed
(This post was edited by notapplicable on Aug 20, 2010, 4:09 PM)
This is a heavily edited yet great post. If we had to read through all the rough drafts and corrections just to get to the final version, we probably would stop reading at post 3.
Good point. The site can solve the problem by transferring the FAQ content into an article, then using the thread just to house a link to it.
Or it could just make an exception for officially recognized FAQs (not that it actually has any, as you know).
Aug 20, 2010, 4:40 PM
Post #103 of 181
(5547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
Re: [notapplicable] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.
That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.
Aug 20, 2010, 4:54 PM
Post #104 of 181
(5539 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
Re: [jt512] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
jt512 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.
That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.
Aug 20, 2010, 4:56 PM
Post #105 of 181
(5535 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
Re: [jt512] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(1 rating)
Can't Post
jt512 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.
That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.
Jay
I deleted the 'must not leaves' a very very long time ago and have resisted posting anything I might want back, ever since. I have left a few standing because some folks I liked expressed appreciation of them.
Its not a threat - give me a 'delete all' button and I will click it. Fact.
Aug 20, 2010, 4:57 PM
Post #106 of 181
(5531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
Re: [notapplicable] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(2 ratings)
Can't Post
notapplicable wrote:
sidepull wrote:
I'm sorry if someone else has made the point I'm about to make, I already had to slog through three other threads just to understand the genesis behind all of this blather. So here's my opinion (and if it reinforces, reiterates, or repeats that of other's, then good):
This poll (and it's front page endorsement from the mod's) misses the crux of the issue: the role of the mod's and the ability to apologize.
Had a mod focused more on serving the members of RC.com and simply just apologized all of this would have stopped. Sure, other members of RC.com could have backed off too, that would have been civil, but that isn't their role. In contrast, mod's are given power to serve the needs of the RC.com community, not to serve their needs. If a mod oversteps his or her bounds and gets called on it, they should just apologize and let it go.
Put more simply: I voted for "no change" in the poll. If it had listed an option for "help mod's understand their role better" I would have checked that box instead.
Best of luck to everyone. Hopefully there is some sort of collective learning and catharsis that comes from this (though I doubt it).
The true "genesis" of this poll actually goes back much farther than recent events and is only following them so closely because if I had tried to raise the issue at some random point in the past, it would not have generated sitewide attention. In short, this discussion is simply capitalizing on recent events and does not directly stem from them.
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example. That has nothing at all to do with the mods or their role on here. The mods are unlikely to be the catalyst for the next tempertantrum that results in post deleting either.
I don't know if votes can be changed or not but you might want to reconsider the issue on it's own merits and not as it relates to this one incident.
Editeded to add - Nope, just looked and votes cannot be changed
Aug 20, 2010, 4:57 PM
Post #107 of 181
(5531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
Re: [edge] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
edge wrote:
jt512 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.
That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there their existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.
Aug 20, 2010, 5:00 PM
Post #108 of 181
(5524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
Re: [dingus] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(1 rating)
Can't Post
dingus wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
sidepull wrote:
I'm sorry if someone else has made the point I'm about to make, I already had to slog through three other threads just to understand the genesis behind all of this blather. So here's my opinion (and if it reinforces, reiterates, or repeats that of other's, then good):
This poll (and it's front page endorsement from the mod's) misses the crux of the issue: the role of the mod's and the ability to apologize.
Had a mod focused more on serving the members of RC.com and simply just apologized all of this would have stopped. Sure, other members of RC.com could have backed off too, that would have been civil, but that isn't their role. In contrast, mod's are given power to serve the needs of the RC.com community, not to serve their needs. If a mod oversteps his or her bounds and gets called on it, they should just apologize and let it go.
Put more simply: I voted for "no change" in the poll. If it had listed an option for "help mod's understand their role better" I would have checked that box instead.
Best of luck to everyone. Hopefully there is some sort of collective learning and catharsis that comes from this (though I doubt it).
The true "genesis" of this poll actually goes back much farther than recent events and is only following them so closely because if I had tried to raise the issue at some random point in the past, it would not have generated sitewide attention. In short, this discussion is simply capitalizing on recent events and does not directly stem from them.
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example. That has nothing at all to do with the mods or their role on here. The mods are unlikely to be the catalyst for the next tempertantrum that results in post deleting either.
I don't know if votes can be changed or not but you might want to reconsider the issue on it's own merits and not as it relates to this one incident.
Editeded to add - Nope, just looked and votes cannot be changed
He edited his post for christsakes! LAUGHABLE.
DMT
I think you're laughing alone on that one, given the poll choices.
Aug 20, 2010, 5:09 PM
Post #109 of 181
(5514 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
Re: [dingus] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(1 rating)
Can't Post
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.
That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.
Jay
I deleted the 'must not leaves' a very very long time ago and have resisted posting anything I might want back, ever since. I have left a few standing because some folks I liked expressed appreciation of them.
Its not a threat - give me a 'delete all' button and I will click it. Fact.
DMT
One could make a helluva reality TV show. Put Dingus on a deserted island in a 'hatch' with the internet - a la Lost. You could run a couple of seasons at least, playing mindgames with him with the promise of a 'delete all' button. 108 minutes is up Dingus, type in the code.
Aug 20, 2010, 5:12 PM
Post #110 of 181
(5511 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
Re: [jt512] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
sidepull wrote:
I'm sorry if someone else has made the point I'm about to make, I already had to slog through three other threads just to understand the genesis behind all of this blather. So here's my opinion (and if it reinforces, reiterates, or repeats that of other's, then good):
This poll (and it's front page endorsement from the mod's) misses the crux of the issue: the role of the mod's and the ability to apologize.
Had a mod focused more on serving the members of RC.com and simply just apologized all of this would have stopped. Sure, other members of RC.com could have backed off too, that would have been civil, but that isn't their role. In contrast, mod's are given power to serve the needs of the RC.com community, not to serve their needs. If a mod oversteps his or her bounds and gets called on it, they should just apologize and let it go.
Put more simply: I voted for "no change" in the poll. If it had listed an option for "help mod's understand their role better" I would have checked that box instead.
Best of luck to everyone. Hopefully there is some sort of collective learning and catharsis that comes from this (though I doubt it).
The true "genesis" of this poll actually goes back much farther than recent events and is only following them so closely because if I had tried to raise the issue at some random point in the past, it would not have generated sitewide attention. In short, this discussion is simply capitalizing on recent events and does not directly stem from them.
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example. That has nothing at all to do with the mods or their role on here. The mods are unlikely to be the catalyst for the next tempertantrum that results in post deleting either.
I don't know if votes can be changed or not but you might want to reconsider the issue on it's own merits and not as it relates to this one incident.
Editeded to add - Nope, just looked and votes cannot be changed
He edited his post for christsakes! LAUGHABLE.
DMT
I think you're laughing alone on that one, given the poll choices.
Aug 20, 2010, 5:33 PM
Post #112 of 181
(5495 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
Re: [jt512] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
sidepull wrote:
I'm sorry if someone else has made the point I'm about to make, I already had to slog through three other threads just to understand the genesis behind all of this blather. So here's my opinion (and if it reinforces, reiterates, or repeats that of other's, then good):
This poll (and it's front page endorsement from the mod's) misses the crux of the issue: the role of the mod's and the ability to apologize.
Had a mod focused more on serving the members of RC.com and simply just apologized all of this would have stopped. Sure, other members of RC.com could have backed off too, that would have been civil, but that isn't their role. In contrast, mod's are given power to serve the needs of the RC.com community, not to serve their needs. If a mod oversteps his or her bounds and gets called on it, they should just apologize and let it go.
Put more simply: I voted for "no change" in the poll. If it had listed an option for "help mod's understand their role better" I would have checked that box instead.
Best of luck to everyone. Hopefully there is some sort of collective learning and catharsis that comes from this (though I doubt it).
The true "genesis" of this poll actually goes back much farther than recent events and is only following them so closely because if I had tried to raise the issue at some random point in the past, it would not have generated sitewide attention. In short, this discussion is simply capitalizing on recent events and does not directly stem from them.
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example. That has nothing at all to do with the mods or their role on here. The mods are unlikely to be the catalyst for the next tempertantrum that results in post deleting either.
I don't know if votes can be changed or not but you might want to reconsider the issue on it's own merits and not as it relates to this one incident.
Editeded to add - Nope, just looked and votes cannot be changed
He edited his post for christsakes! LAUGHABLE.
DMT
I think you're laughing alone on that one, given the poll choices.
Jay
You can count me as another one laughing. I'm also still giggling like a school girl that so many people posted so many empty messages complaining of the lack of content.
Aug 20, 2010, 5:34 PM
Post #113 of 181
(5493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
To any of the mods that lack understanding of ironic humor (most of them), now would be the perfect time to edit TitM's post.
Aug 20, 2010, 5:34 PM
Post #114 of 181
(5492 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.
That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.
Jay
I deleted the 'must not leaves' a very very long time ago and have resisted posting anything I might want back, ever since. I have left a few standing because some folks I liked expressed appreciation of them.
Its not a threat - give me a 'delete all' button and I will click it. Fact.
DMT
One could make a helluva reality TV show. Put Dingus on a deserted island in a 'hatch' with the internet - a la Lost. You could run a couple of seasons at least, playing mindgames with him with the promise of a 'delete all' button. 108 minutes is up Dingus, type in the code.
I like it!
But not down in a hatch please.
Put me with Kate, in a hut, on the beach. I'll press that fucking button, you'll see me here no more!
Aug 20, 2010, 6:02 PM
Post #115 of 181
(5473 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Shroom wrote:
Can they really edit user's posts?
Can they? Yes.
Do they? Very, very, rarely
I have done it exactly once in 6 years, to make a link "clicky" in the original post. The link was extremely relevant at the time, and the OP was asking for it to be hot linked in his post. I confirmed that he was OK with that by PM, and got a thank you for doing it.
Anytime someone edits a post, it is noted at the bottom of the post. 99.9999% of the time it is the OP, but if a mod edits it, then the mod's name appears and there is no way to deny who made the edit.
(See, like down there at the bottom...) V V V V
(This post was edited by edge on Aug 20, 2010, 6:04 PM)
Aug 20, 2010, 6:52 PM
Post #116 of 181
(5454 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2003
Posts: 9679
Re: [jt512] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
jt512 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.
That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.
Aug 20, 2010, 6:54 PM
Post #117 of 181
(5452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2003
Posts: 9679
Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Aug 20, 2010, 6:56 PM
Post #118 of 181
(5449 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2003
Posts: 9679
Re: [edge] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
edge wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Shroom wrote:
Can they really edit user's posts?
Can they? Yes.
Do they? Very, very, rarely
I have done it exactly once in 6 years, to make a link "clicky" in the original post. The link was extremely relevant at the time, and the OP was asking for it to be hot linked in his post. I confirmed that he was OK with that by PM, and got a thank you for doing it.
Anytime someone edits a post, it is noted at the bottom of the post. 99.9999% of the time it is the OP, but if a mod edits it, then the mod's name appears and there is no way to deny who made the edit.
(See, like down there at the bottom...) V V V V
Should just quote it instead and fix it there. That precedent should never be set. Even with permission from the user. Just sayin'
Aug 20, 2010, 6:58 PM
Post #119 of 181
(5444 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2010
Posts: 7
Re: [notapplicable] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(1 rating)
Can't Post
Users should be allowed to edit, but you should show the previous versions (would require some serious retooling of the forum's architecture).
If a user wants to delete a post, you should delete identifying information relating the post back to them, including the signature, in the current post, and in the revisions, but leave the post to keep the context of the discussion.
Aug 20, 2010, 7:20 PM
Post #120 of 181
(5425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
Re: [climbs4fun] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.
That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.
Aug 20, 2010, 7:39 PM
Post #122 of 181
(5433 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
Re: [edge] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
edge wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Shroom wrote:
Can they really edit user's posts?
Can they? Yes.
Do they? Very, very, rarely
I have done it exactly once in 6 years, to make a link "clicky" in the original post. The link was extremely relevant at the time, and the OP was asking for it to be hot linked in his post. I confirmed that he was OK with that by PM, and got a thank you for doing it.
Anytime someone edits a post, it is noted at the bottom of the post. 99.9999% of the time it is the OP, but if a mod edits it, then the mod's name appears and there is no way to deny who made the edit.
(See, like down there at the bottom...) V V V V
But that edit tag would remain only until (or if) the OP re-edits.
Aug 20, 2010, 8:37 PM
Post #123 of 181
(5408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 9, 2008
Posts: 352
Re: [notapplicable] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(1 rating)
Can't Post
i voted for up to 3 days, but i would have preferred a "within 1 hour option". this allows for grammar, spelling, and coherence mistakes being corrected. whats the point on editing a post i wrote 5 months ago??
Aug 20, 2010, 8:46 PM
Post #124 of 181
(5400 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(2 ratings)
Can't Post
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Shroom wrote:
Can they really edit user's posts?
Can they? Yes.
Do they? Very, very, rarely
That young Aussi mod will do anything and I am sure he could
Aug 20, 2010, 8:58 PM
Post #125 of 181
(5383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
edge wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Shroom wrote:
Can they really edit user's posts?
Can they? Yes.
Do they? Very, very, rarely
I have done it exactly once in 6 years, to make a link "clicky" in the original post. The link was extremely relevant at the time, and the OP was asking for it to be hot linked in his post. I confirmed that he was OK with that by PM, and got a thank you for doing it.
Anytime someone edits a post, it is noted at the bottom of the post. 99.9999% of the time it is the OP, but if a mod edits it, then the mod's name appears and there is no way to deny who made the edit.
(See, like down there at the bottom...) V V V V
But that edit tag would remain only until (or if) the OP re-edits.
Even then, the information is not gone. You'll notice that the "edited" in "this post was edited by..." is a link. It takes you to a list of times, dates and users responsible for every edit to that post.
67 /
43%
