Should users be able to edit their own posts?

[Flagg]

As it stands, users can go back and edit their posts at any time. If the post has already been replied to, a line is added to the bottom stating that it was edited, and when the edit cocurred.


However, it's easy to see how that could be used to weasel out of putting one's foot in one's mouth, or to "cheat" in an argument.


There are a lot of advantages, however, to being able to fix stupid mistakes, etc.


There is a mod available that stops people from editing their post once someone adds a reply. Do you guys want me to implement this?


Vote and discuss.


-S

 

[lauge_perto]

I think it is a good feature that you can edit your own posts, in case you remember that you wanted to add this, or you have already gotten answers to some of the questions, but I can also see your point about the "cheating" in posts, so maybe you should add the mod. One would still be able to edit his own post within a relative short timespan (given the time it takes for this site to respond to a given post) but still enough time so that if you, just after you press "submit" you remember something, you can edit it in.


The mod is the way, go for it.


- Lauge

 

[Persell]

As it stands, users can go back and edit their posts at any time. If the post has already been replied to, a line is added to the bottom stating that it was edited, and when the edit cocurred.
However, it's easy to see how that could be used to weasel out of putting one's foot in one's mouth, or to "cheat" in an argument.


There are a lot of advantages, however, to being able to fix stupid mistakes, etc.


There is a mod available that stops people from editing their post once someone adds a reply. Do you guys want me to implement this?


Vote and discuss.


-S

Being able to edit a post when. say, you've posted it and seconds later notice a glaring omission is great . . . but once someone's replied to it, it only causes confusion. I say no editing once posts have been replied to.

 

[MikeOQuinn]

Being able to edit a post when. say, you've posted it and seconds later notice a glaring omission is great . . . but once someone's replied to it, it only causes confusion.

The confusion caused occurs when someone else posts a reply to the original post that makes no sense after the post is edited, right?


The solution is that when you post a reply to a specific part of someone else's post, you quote them. At that time, they can edit their post to their heart's content, but the quote still remains. This serves the practical benefit of providing a reminder to anyone reading a scathing reply to a post what the original text of the post was, allowing them to freely draw their own conclusions.


Allowing the editing of posts also cuts down on the number of posts in a thread in general, by allowing the editor a chance to change his opinion wihtout having to create a new post to do so.


In other words, I'm for it.

 

[Persell]

The fact remains that, for the most part, everyday users are going to do stupid things like change the entirety of their post after the fact. Anyone who did would most likely be caught, and called on it.  And, if I recall correctly, being "Called on it" in the Ec is never a particularly pleasant process.


On the other hand, I'm quite compulsive about typographic and gramatical errors.  If I use the wrong word (such as when said, mistakenly, that the Elemental Dragons are Gaia's first circle souls rather than her third) I like to be able to correct it when someone brings it to my attention.


Furthermore, if users can edit their posts after the fact, we can have constantly updated lists of, for example, links.  Instead of having to scroll through eight pages of a combination of intelligent discussion and people calling each other dick-horses, all the links, or charms, or whetever the thing being listed that have eventuated from the discussion are cleanly available in one place.  Easy!

 

[Persell]

Being able to edit a post when. say, you've posted it and seconds later notice a glaring omission is great . . . but once someone's replied to it, it only causes confusion.

The confusion caused occurs when someone else posts a reply to the original post that makes no sense after the post is edited, right?


The solution is that when you post a reply to a specific part of someone else's post, you quote them. At that time, they can edit their post to their heart's content, but the quote still remains. This serves the practical benefit of providing a reminder to anyone reading a scathing reply to a post what the original text of the post was, allowing them to freely draw their own conclusions.

It's still confusing . . . and puts an unnecessary burden on those who wish to reply to others' assertions and arguments. Hell, I'd support no editing at all if this were an all-or-nothing situation. At the very least, though, it should be impossible to edit a post once it has been replied to. It also fucks up the flow of a thread should you come in in the middle of a heated back-and-forth.

Allowing the editing of posts also cuts down on the number of posts in a thread in general, by allowing the editor a chance to change his opinion wihtout having to create a new post to do so.


In other words, I'm for it.

I'd much rather see post after post after post than see posts that make no sense given the other posts that appear in the thread. Threads are narratives - they occur in a recognizable order (chronological). Allowing editing once a post has been replied to fucks up this recognizable order.

 

[Persell]

I'm finding myself in an awkward position.  I agree with everything TSJ has said; but I really prefer to be able to edit my posts.  I know I would only use it to correct typographical, grammatical and foolish errors.  I would hope the other members of this forum could be trusted to do the same, but at the same time I doubt it - that seems to me terminal naivety.  There are always children who think no-one will remember what they said if they edit it.

 

[Haku1]

I think that line after line of threads would be a good thing like TSJ said... but I also want to be able to edit my fucking errors expecially when submiting something.


Perhaps a time delayed editing time period is allowed? Say 1/2 an hour. Pass that, no edits, no take backs.

 

[Flagg]

I think that line after line of threads would be a good thing like TSJ said... but I also want to be able to edit my fucking errors expecially when submiting something.

The submission thing is the main reason why I'm in favor of keeping the ability to edit, though I do agree strongly with all of TSJ's points.


There is a mod available that lets you set the restriction forum by forum rather than the entire site, which would work well to remedy that, but it's a beta, and unapproved by the phpBB team, so I'm a little hesitant to use it.


I suppose I could always just back up the database before I apply it, in case anything explodes...


-S

 

[MikeOQuinn]

Oh no. Your BB asplode.


All your BB are belong to us.

 

[Seiraryu]

Oh no. Your BB asplode.
All your BB are belong to us.

Oh my God, that actually made me laugh out loud.  Rofl.

 

[Flagg]

Oh no. Your BB asplode.
All your BB are belong to us.

Make your time, Mike O'Quinn, make your time!


-S

 

[Valheru]

I agree that we should be able to edit our posts for stupid errors, but not be able to edit them after people reply.


I hate it on forums when you see someone quoted but the text has been changed from the origional message. It's just annoying.

 

[Joseph]

I vote that people should NOT be able to edit their posts.  The Compendium has a rich tradition of calling people on shit they say.  People being able to edit their posts allows them to remove potentially hilarious incriminating evidence.  


Yes, it is a bit annoying to not be able to edit your post, but you can always post again right after correcting yourself, and this prevents lame crap like editting and saying "I didn't say that."  It removes potential credibility.

 

[The Wyld]

I'm all for allowing the editing of posts. Maybe the places I haunt don't have this problem so much but its never seemed to be overt. Regulars who practice cheating their posts will quickly become known as the pariahs they are.


When I post ideas I like to modify them as suggestions roll in. It makes sections like the Charms and Spells forums practical for me.

 

[StarHawk]

I think being able to edit our posts before others reply would be great. There were several times in the old EC and other places where I derely wished I could go back. And I hated being punished for it, no matter how sorry I was and how I would correct myself. Hell one of my nic-names came from an annoying uncorrectable typo.


If we can't edit our posts could we perhaps add a spell checker for those who have bad <i>engrish</i>?

 

[Haku1]

Are you saying you're a sufferer from bad engrish? ^_-


I'm not sure a spell-check function might be good to put in... at least bandwidth and content-wise...  


I think we should take it upon ourselves... when submitting items... to use our own spell checkers in our word processors or an actual dictionary...

 

[Persell]

I'm all for allowing the editing of posts. Maybe the places I haunt don't have this problem so much but its never seemed to be overt. Regulars who practice cheating their posts will quickly become known as the pariahs they are.
When I post ideas I like to modify them as suggestions roll in. It makes sections like the Charms and Spells forums practical for me.

This makes sense. It also means (for things like Submissions) that you can edit the top post from the input submitted below it, and people who want to read the improved version do not have to scroll down to the end of the thread.


While I understand that this makes TSJ crazy, it *is* solvable by


(a) quoting text when you refer to it, which both Joseph and TSJ do compulsively anyway, and


(b) annotating any corrections/changes you make yourself, i.e. noting what, when and where you edited when you edit a post. the forums I hang out on when I'm not here set this precedent, and it makes for fairly clear posting with a minimum of revisionist "Oh, I never said that" bullshit.


If a post has been edited without a footnote saying what was edited at the bottom, people tend to react badly, so EVERYONE footnotes their posts like this:


(Edited for spelling and grammar)


or


(Edited because I was being a dumbass - personal comments about TSJ's great-grandma retracted)


See how well that works?


(Edit: I DO, however, think that a red line of text SAYING when a post has been edited is fucking mandatory. I hope that can be set up. - Mempo)

 

[Flagg]

(Edit: I DO' date=' however, think that a red line of text SAYING when a post has been edited is fucking mandatory. I hope that can be set up. - Mempo)[/quote']
As it stands, the software automatically tags messages that have been edited after they've been replied to. It's not red, but it's there.


I might be able to tweak the code to make it red, if people prefer that.


As much as I'd tend to favor disallowing editiing, the poll shows so far that people are 2:1 in favor of keeping things the way they are. I'd like to keep most of these decisions democratic, so I won't be changing any code.


However, if there ends up being any incidents involving abuse of this feature, I'll call another vote.


-S

 

[Persell]

I just don't see the advantages to editing. They screw up the narrative nature of threads, and they don't allow you to do anything that you couldn't do with a new post. What's so bad about new posts?

 

[The Wyld]

Nothing really. But in my opinion there is no disadvantage to having an editor available either.

 

[ashenphoenix]

I might be able to tweak the code to make it red, if people prefer that.

Can we make the changes show up in red?


Else I'm in favor of the "no edit after reply policy", having originally suggested "no editing at all".


I like the goddamn rite of fire. It's part of what made up EC's citizenship.


If you ran away in the first place, you didn't belong. If you licked your wounds and came back, then you were acceptable.


I think we'll get a whole bunch of namby pamby wusses like Harm, who just pissed everyone off. Yes, we now have a mod, but it was part of EC that the citizens dealt with the outsiders.


Also, the worry would be that if you edited grammar/spelling, it may get you artificially labeled as dodgey, which would mean that people wouldn't use it anyways.


WotC's boards make you justify why you want to edit something. It'd probably be too much to program it in, and would also probably require a lot of editors time, but may be something we can look to in the future.

 

[Vasilis]

As it stands, the software automatically tags messages that have been edited after they've been replied to. It's not red, but it's there.
I might be able to tweak the code to make it red, if people prefer that.

Hell, yeah.


At the end of the day, I'm considering us all to be reasonable, amiable and friendly posters here. Editing should be allowed, whether the onus of indicating a post has been retouched falls to the code or the poster.


I accept there are concerns by some, but do they really outweigh the advantages gained by being able to edit the occasional post?

 

[Persell]

How about allowing, as a compromise, allowing users to withdraw a post entirely?  Give people the option of replacing their post with "This post was deleted by the user" wouldn't affect the flow of the conversation, and would prevent a lot of revisionism.


Also, I have been convinced by Joseph and TSJ that the compendium would be a much better place without after the fact adjustments.  I would like to alter my vote from yes to no editing after reply.

 

[lauge_perto]

I cant even see why this discussion hasn't been setled yet. If you edit your post before NO ONE has replied to it (not quoted, just replied) you can't "cheat" in discussions but you still have the ability to edit your post for typos and stuff after you post it - but only right after you post it.


- Lauge