Aug 19, 2010, 3:37 PM
Post #27 of 181
(6398 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2008
Posts: 65
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
Personally, I feel that 24 hours is plenty of time to catch errors in my post, or add additional thoughts that I didn't put in the original message. I'd be fine with only having a day'ish to make any changes...after that I'd have to reply to my own post or ask a Mod to make changes.
I voted 3 days since that was the shortest option.
Aug 19, 2010, 4:43 PM
Post #30 of 181
(6366 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
Re: [curt] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(3 ratings)
Can't Post
curt wrote:
Clearly, there are issues with the current model. I now feel that posts should be editable for 48 to 72 hours to allow the poster to correct errors, add content, delete his post etc. That should be ample time for those purposes. After that, the post should be considered part of the RC.com archive.
Curt
if users own/retain copyright on the intellectual content of their posts, as per the current terms of use, they should have the ability to edit and delete them indefinitely.
to do otherwise would require that the terms of use be changed.
and for good measure, edited to add;
ESPECIALLY in a case like adatesman, where he spent a shitload of time and actual real money to generate data and thoughtful analyses, and the intellectual rights to that work should actually mean something. this website continuing to use that information to generate page views is profiting off of his work without his consent.
(This post was edited by drivel on Aug 19, 2010, 4:49 PM)
Aug 19, 2010, 4:55 PM
Post #33 of 181
(6349 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
Re: [dingus] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(4 ratings)
Can't Post
dingus wrote:
The poster OWNS HER POST. Its her intellectual material and until you start paying her for copyrights, its REMAINS HER PROPERTY.
Curious... Can this logic be extended to:
Climber cleans and bolts a route at a public crag, then has a falling out with the locals and wants to chop the bolts and have guide books edited to remove the route.
Or, climber is a member of a [privately owned] gym, and they volunteer to put up routes, then have a falling out with the management of the gym, do they have the right to demand that all of their routes be taken down?
Yes / No? I think the logic is similar, because THEY invested the time and even money to clean and bolt the route, so why wouldn't they "own" it as well? Doesn't it stand to reason that they are offering their time, and money, up to the community?
(This post was edited by rrrADAM on Aug 19, 2010, 4:57 PM)
Aug 19, 2010, 5:00 PM
Post #34 of 181
(6335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2009
Posts: 7
Re: [curt] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(8 ratings)
Can't Post
Absolutely no editing. Posts quality will increase. A side benefit will be the end of the stupid quoting and re-quoting of the original posts or thread answers.
Users need to think twice before hitting the reply or post button.
Delete the campground, soap box etc. Moderate agressively to delete any non-climbing posts.
Aug 19, 2010, 5:08 PM
Post #35 of 181
(6326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
Re: [rrrADAM] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(6 ratings)
Can't Post
I'm not talking about real property. I am talking about intellectual property, personal information and the age of the internet.
We are bought and sold DAILY, mostly unawares. Our personal information is traded and sold amongst various commercial, government and criminal enterprises.
Even for those who want no presence on the internet, tough shit! They are there anyway.
The internet has become part and parcel to HOW we communicate. The backbone of the thing was government funded.
Yet we let commercial interests seize control of it and then let them buy what heretofore belonged to all, or no one.
ddt here, BOUGHT my posts and then asserted ownership rights over them.
YOU don't own them. Not one person posting to this threads owns them, none of them - not mine, not their own, not the 'community's.'
No.
The faceless investors of the holding company now own them. And yall are their tools.
Wake up! We need a personal data amendment to the constitution to state clearly and succinctly - we own our personal information. Medical, financial, etc... belongs to the individual, not to some fucking institution, to be bought and sold like chattel.
Aug 19, 2010, 5:11 PM
Post #36 of 181
(6318 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
Re: [drivel] 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
drivel wrote:
curt wrote:
Clearly, there are issues with the current model. I now feel that posts should be editable for 48 to 72 hours to allow the poster to correct errors, add content, delete his post etc. That should be ample time for those purposes. After that, the post should be considered part of the RC.com archive.
Curt
if users own/retain copyright on the intellectual content of their posts, as per the current terms of use, they should have the ability to edit and delete them indefinitely.
to do otherwise would require that the terms of use be changed.
You are misinterpreting the existing TOS. While RC.com provides some functionality for a user to edit or delete his/her posts, there is absolutely no guarantee made currently that a user will be able to erase all traces of his previously posted content.
Aug 19, 2010, 5:17 PM
Post #37 of 181
(6311 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000
Re: [rrrADAM] 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
rrrADAM wrote:
dingus wrote:
The poster OWNS HER POST. Its her intellectual material and until you start paying her for copyrights, its REMAINS HER PROPERTY.
Curious... Can this logic be extended to:
Climber cleans and bolts a route at a public crag, then has a falling out with the locals and wants to chop the bolts and have guide books edited to remove the route.
Tell you what I'll go and rap bolt a few spots on the BY and we'll find out what the community thinks about ownership of a route.
Or maybe lets pull some bolts off of the compressor route.
Aug 19, 2010, 5:27 PM
Post #38 of 181
(6299 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
Re: [imnotclever] 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
imnotclever wrote:
rrrADAM wrote:
dingus wrote:
The poster OWNS HER POST. Its her intellectual material and until you start paying her for copyrights, its REMAINS HER PROPERTY.
Curious... Can this logic be extended to:
Climber cleans and bolts a route at a public crag, then has a falling out with the locals and wants to chop the bolts and have guide books edited to remove the route.
Tell you what I'll go and rap bolt a few spots on the BY and we'll find out what the community thinks about ownership of a route.
Or maybe lets pull some bolts off of the compressor route.
Ummm... That's more analagous to a TROLL dropping turds in the forums then complaining when his posts are edited or removed.
Not quite the point I was making...
Did I REALLY need to say "sport crag"? I would think that it would be readily apparent in the analogy I gave.
Aug 19, 2010, 5:41 PM
Post #39 of 181
(6285 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000
Re: [rrrADAM] 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
rrrADAM wrote:
imnotclever wrote:
rrrADAM wrote:
dingus wrote:
The poster OWNS HER POST. Its her intellectual material and until you start paying her for copyrights, its REMAINS HER PROPERTY.
Curious... Can this logic be extended to:
Climber cleans and bolts a route at a public crag, then has a falling out with the locals and wants to chop the bolts and have guide books edited to remove the route.
Tell you what I'll go and rap bolt a few spots on the BY and we'll find out what the community thinks about ownership of a route.
Or maybe lets pull some bolts off of the compressor route.
Ummm... That's more analagous to a TROLL dropping turds in the forums then complaining when his posts are edited or removed.
Not quite the point I was making...
Did I REALLY need to say "sport crag"? I would think that it would be readily apparent in the analogy I gave.
The answer to your analogy proves my point, that the community will decide. That's how all bolting wars end. But the default state is that the route is "owned" by the developer and you can't go and change it without their consent and even then sometimes the shit scatters.
Anywhoo, were getting a little far from the source here.
Aug 19, 2010, 5:50 PM
Post #40 of 181
(6278 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
Re: [curt] 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
curt wrote:
drivel wrote:
curt wrote:
Clearly, there are issues with the current model. I now feel that posts should be editable for 48 to 72 hours to allow the poster to correct errors, add content, delete his post etc. That should be ample time for those purposes. After that, the post should be considered part of the RC.com archive.
Curt
if users own/retain copyright on the intellectual content of their posts, as per the current terms of use, they should have the ability to edit and delete them indefinitely.
to do otherwise would require that the terms of use be changed.
You are misinterpreting the existing TOS. While RC.com provides some functionality for a user to edit or delete his/her posts, there is absolutely no guarantee made currently that a user will be able to erase all traces of his previously posted content.
Curt
TOS wrote:
By publishing or submitting any content including, articles, stories, postings and photographs to any part of Rockclimbing.com you give permission that such content may be used at the sole discretion of Rockclimbing.com anywhere else on the site, for any purpose, in its original or edited form, at any time in the future. Content will not be sold without permission of the original author or owner.
I agree, Curt. In fact, if we interpret the Terms of Service to be, in effect, an agreement you enter into tacitly by continuing to post (which it is), then Dingus' argument is both right and wrong. Right: you own your content. Wrong: simply by posting it, you gave RC.com perpetual permission, which cannot be revoked, to continue using it anyplace on the site.
I ain't no lawyer, but that seems pretty clear to me.
Aug 19, 2010, 5:58 PM
Post #41 of 181
(6264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
Re: [imnotclever] 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
imnotclever wrote:
rrrADAM wrote:
imnotclever wrote:
rrrADAM wrote:
dingus wrote:
The poster OWNS HER POST. Its her intellectual material and until you start paying her for copyrights, its REMAINS HER PROPERTY.
Curious... Can this logic be extended to:
Climber cleans and bolts a route at a public crag, then has a falling out with the locals and wants to chop the bolts and have guide books edited to remove the route.
Tell you what I'll go and rap bolt a few spots on the BY and we'll find out what the community thinks about ownership of a route.
Or maybe lets pull some bolts off of the compressor route.
Ummm... That's more analagous to a TROLL dropping turds in the forums then complaining when his posts are edited or removed.
Not quite the point I was making...
Did I REALLY need to say "sport crag"? I would think that it would be readily apparent in the analogy I gave.
The answer to your analogy proves my point, that the community will decide. That's how all bolting wars end. But the default state is that the route is "owned" by the developer and you can't go and change it without their consent and even then sometimes the shit scatters.
Anywhoo, were getting a little far from the source here.
My analogy has nothing to do withy "bolt wars", it has to do with someone wanting to remove and erase a route they put up because they got into an argument with the locals (Umm, this is even exactly what I said)... Which is why I also posted another analogy regarding the gym routes. Same thing.
Nothing to do with "bolt wars"... Everything to do with, "now I'm mad, so I want to remove everything that I've contributed"
Get the analogy now?
PS... I do agree with you regarding the "ethic" of talking to the FA prior to altering, in any way, the route [or post]. But the FA can't just go chop the bolts of his route if he has a falling out with the locals... THAT is my point.
Edit: I am certainly not against editing for a period of time, as I rarely get it right the first time, and my spelling sux, and this is at the bottom of at least 1/3 of my posts/replies:
In reply to:
(This post was edited by rrrADAM on...)
Including, ironically enlough, this one.
(This post was edited by rrrADAM on Aug 19, 2010, 6:37 PM)
Aug 19, 2010, 7:14 PM
Post #44 of 181
(6201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
Re: [snoopy138] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(3 ratings)
Can't Post
Just like opening your mouth, think before you do and you'll not have to take much back. Editing for a day or so to fix obvious mistakes or add clarity is enough. It's not like you can't clarify a point later if someone calls you out. This is a privately owned website, if you don't want them possessing your priceless contributions to human knowledge don't post here. Start your own website and do it your way, or live with the rules here. They provide a free place to post your thoughts and burn time, what more can you ask?
Aug 19, 2010, 7:15 PM
Post #45 of 181
(6199 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
Re: [boku] 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 think there is a need to be able to edit posts for a period following their initial posting. I frequently look at what I wrote, realize it could be clearer or that I've cheesetitted a tag, and it seems better to be able to go back in & fix it rather than create a new post.
I also think that it needs to be for a limited time span. I like the thought of 1 day. Any shorter and we probably wouldn't get dingus' great stories.
The problem I see with a prolonged editing window is the disruption of the conversational nature of the threads. If the post that you are replying to has changed, then your reply may no longer make sense, or may be wrong. I also don't like the "I'll include more in this post 4 days from now" type of thing. I use the "unread" functionality to read the threads most of the time, so I miss the edits that occur in earlier posts. Put new results, drawings, etc. in a new post, possibly put a link back to the earlier ones.
I also think that in terms of a person's ability to retain control of their writings, we have seen that it is an illusion. Once it's posted, it's available for grabbing by web archivers, personal copying, caching all over the place. So being able to delete or edit after a prolonged period does not really enforce your property rights.
Aug 19, 2010, 7:18 PM
Post #46 of 181
(6193 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28992
Re: [dynosore] 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
dynosore wrote:
Just like opening your mouth, think before you do and you'll not have to take much back. Editing for a day or so to fix obvious mistakes or add clarity is enough. It's not like you can't clarify a point later if someone calls you out. This is a privately owned website, if you don't want them possessing your priceless contributions to human knowledge don't post here. Start your own website and do it your way, or live with the rules here. They provide a free place to post your thoughts and burn time, what more can you ask?
my point had more to do with somebody posting something about me, me notifying them, and them being able to edit it out.
Aug 19, 2010, 7:19 PM
Post #47 of 181
(6189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2005
Posts: 607
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 think posts should always be editable mainly because sometimes inaccurate data or dated data needs to be changed or because sometimes someone just makes a mistake. It would be nice if there was a little link/button next to the "(This post was edited by ??? on Aug 19, 2010, 9:16 AM)" that says "See Un-Edited Post" where you could click to see the pre-edit post. You can already click on the "edited" and see an edit log. How much more difficult could that be?
As for wholesale deleting on a users post...I am not sure if I believe users should be able to do this. I do believe that a user owns his own content and it should be removed by the mod's at the users request unless someone else paid for the content.
As for Aric's situation I see two real questions here. Did Aric post the content? And, did Aric own the content? As we all know Aric posted the content but did he own the content. I would say that he owned some of it. This is because he did the testing and the writing but where did he get all of the stuff he tested. At the very least the people who donated climbing equipment to be tested should share in the ownership of the results thus they have a right for the results to be posted here. If I had donated to the cause and the information was not available to me I would be pissed but since I never donated to the cause I have no right to the data thus no right to be pissed. So I am not pissed.
This is a very unusual situation and I believe that if most of us just deleted our posts it would not be a big deal and would probably go by unnoticed but someone like Aric who had tons of posts that some people found invaluable it is a huge deal. I still feel that most of it was his personal property that he chose to share with the rest of us. Now was it small and childish of him to do such a thing??? Yes, but it was and should be his choice what to do with his data.
What do we do from here? Who knows?? I do think that we should just drop it and stop destroying RC.com with all the bickering. In my opinion the best thing we could do is to let Aric go, delete any reference to him and his material and forget that he was ever here. If you are interested in his work he said he was going to post it somewhere else so just wait for that to happen.
I really had no feelings towards Aric until his recent childish actions but now I only have one thing to say to him.
Aric, so long and don't let the door hit you on the way out!
JB
(This post was edited by kovacs69 on Aug 19, 2010, 7:21 PM)
Aug 19, 2010, 7:52 PM
Post #49 of 181
(6153 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
Re: [imnotclever] 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
Another vote for "allow editing only for a limited time window"
Maybe make it rather long, since sometimes (over the course of days) a thread develops in such a way that one realizes that an early post was wrong, and due to the nature of climbing maybe even dangerous. If something like this occures after the editing period, there should be a shortcut to a mod just for possibly dangerous information, so that such stuff can always be flagged (better than simply delete it, so that one can maybe learn from the mistakes?).
And a remark concerning all the "i own my stuff and i can do whatever the fuck i want with it" stuff:
Yes and no. If i write an article for a newspaper or a scientific journal, i cant take it back. Sure, a journalist gets paid for his work, but the scientist? Not by the journal that publishes the work! He has to life with his work being read and quoted again and again, and if it was stupid to begin with, then maybe just to prove how not do do something.
And the fact that rc.n00b earns money of my back? I dont see any problem in that either. I also cost rc,n00b money, so thats fair game. I give them my content (it is my own responsibility to decide what i want to post and what not) and in exchange i take a plattform to read other content or simply exchange myself with other folks.
I am not saying that it is perfect as it is at the moment (there could and should a lot of improvements be made), but the general principle (that is the same for about every forum and website with user intervention) is perfectly fine.
Aug 19, 2010, 7:57 PM
Post #50 of 181
(6148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
Re: 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
One thing...
Some keep stating a reason to allow editing is in case soemone realizes that they posted something that was wrong... If someone has already replied after the [wrong] post/reply, the best thing to do is quote yourself (wrong stuff), then address/correct it in a later post.
67 /
43%
don't post here. Start your own website and do it your way, or live with the rules here. They provide a free place to post your thoughts and burn time, what more can you ask? 
