Concerning the editing post policy

[Mike Richardson]

I've noticed a lot of activity in the War Room. Perhaps you guys are talking about the 60 minute policy.

Regardless of what you're discussing, will there be any change to the policy? Is it even being considered?

I'm not looking for another locked thread, just a simple response will suffice. Thanks.

 

[Scott Baret]

No matter what happens I feel a statement needs to be made.

There was, to my knowledge, no written statement made about the editing posts policy being changed. This, to me, is wrong, as many of us had responsibly used this feature for years and suddenly found ourselves deprived of it.

To me, not communicating about a new rule is like the United States repealing one of the amendments to the Constitution without telling citizens. Suppose, for example, the first amendment is repealed. Suddenly it is no longer legal to have free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. Unfortunately, nobody realizes that until it is discovered on our own. (For those of you living in other countries, feel free to substitute an example from your own laws if you are unfamiliar with the US Bill of Rights).

I understand that the moderators are here to help, but I have a few issues with always having to use a "middleman" to edit posts:

1. There may be miscommunication between parties as to what needs deleted or edited.

2. If a post is being edited or deleted for personal reasons (this could happen more in the lounge than anywhere) the moderator may not quite understand the rationale for editing/deleting and/or the poster may be uncomfortable communicating such rationale to the moderator.

3. Time delays are inevitable. Suppose I have a thread in which I list a Mac SE/30, ImageWriter II, and iMac G3 for sale. Several questions are asked before I can write a new post that the SE/30 is sold. This post may be hard to find and may take anywhere from a few minutes to several hours to edit. Meanwhile, a few disappointed would-be buyers would be contacting me via PM asking for a shipping quote on that SE/30. Additionally, if I suddenly find the manual for the ImageWriter II, I would want to add that to the description right away.

4. I have a stickied thread about CRTs in compact Macs. There is also a thread about System 6 software resources in the software section. Both of these threads have been updated by their creators when new discoveries are made or errors are corrected. This should continue, as the point of these threads is to provide quick and easy access to information, not to have users sift through pages of posts to find what they need to.

5. Moderators may feel as though a change is unnecessary if they have a particular bias or opinion towards a particular subject or poster. (I trust that this won't happen on here but I have seen similar things on other forums).

I am very disappointed in the change of policy, especially since the old system had been working fine for the majority of us and because nothing was ever communicated about the policy change.

We, as board members, have had a right taken away from us without any explanation of why this happened. If it was a result of the software upgrade (which I am assuming it was), I believe we should regain the power to edit that we once had since we were never told that we would lose that right. I have read comments regarding "rights" and "privileges" in the now-locked thread on this topic and feel as though the justification for losing our ability to edit and delete posts is invalid, especially because there are far more legitimate uses for the editing feature than illegitimate ones and because nearly every edit I have witnessed on this forum has been done for a valid reason (such as updating old threads to reflect new links, updating sale threads, deleting accidentally-typed sensitive information that search engines may inadvertently pick up, adding new discoveries to early posts to avoid unnecessary scrolling, etc).

I am a current moderator of an online group, have moderated a now-defunct message board, and serve as the president of the Chess Club at my college. I founded the club and was responsible for writing its bylaws, which involved working with student government leaders and learning how to implement policies and procedures at an organizational level. When I reviewed the bylaws with our club members I left the forum open for discussion and did not abruptly make changes without telling anyone. Furthermore, when a change was needed within the club itself (such as the prize for tournament winners) I put forth my proposal to the club after discussing it with the group adviser and vice president. Club members would discuss the proposed change and nothing was implemented until all comments, votes, etc. were heard. I would do the same should a similar situation arise on the online boards, where I work only in the best interest of the majority and not my personal beliefs.

I believe a system such as this needs to happen on this forum so that we can communicate clearly regarding any policy or policy change proposal, listen to the voices of everyone instead of a few folks who happen to be moderators, and work in the best interest of the members of this forum. After all, the forum is about those who use it, not the personal interests of a few folks who wish to ignore the concerns and opinions of the people who make 68KMLA the great resource it has been for many years.

 

[register]

As the forum rules point out, any rules are subject to change by the moderators. But, as long as there is no evidence of improper edits affecting the use or moderation of the forum as a whole, I kindly ask to delay the editing post restriction policy entry into force until future occurences might lead to a consensus about it.

 

[Scott Baret]

There was never anything written about users editing posts in these rules. The heading in question says that the moderators can change "these rules", which appears to refer to the rules on that page. Since there was no rule about editing posts ever written there, the statement on that page does not seem to govern the removal of post editing, meaning that it was not one of the rules that could be subject to change without notice.

 

[equill]

One unfortunate aspect of the closure of the prior thread about this subject was that a contributor who had some bearing on the closure did not clearly distinguish between liberty and right, and introduced a not entirely relevant consideration of privilege.

A cat cavorts on roofs at night because it is at liberty to do so, unless it is physically prevented. A human is at liberty to kill another human because it can, with a wide variety of means. Liberty springs from the nature of the animal and the actions available to it, and implies nothing about the desirability of exercising the liberty. However, some liberties are proscribed or made unavailable for supposedly good reason. The liberty of humans to murder others is almost everywhere negated by proscription in law, except (one notes) eg, for the military against each other in wartime, and for mass murderers of civilians—using the excuse of 'terrorism'—in peacetime (or undeclared wartime, as you please to regard it).

There is no right that is not prescribed or defined in statute or common law. Bestowal of a legal right implies, by its very happening, that the right can be withdrawn either by repeal or by change of popular opinion. Therefore, 'natural' rights do not exist anywhere but in wishful thinking. Even death—the only irrevocable certainty for any animal—is not a right but a liberty, and the ever-increasing army of nannies, both governmental and societal, chivvy, cajole and constrain us toward the belief that we must live as long as artifice or laws can achieve, regardless of the utility of that prolongation.

Privilege is by definition (Latin: privus=private, + lex=law) for the few who can attain it, out of their own achievement or by bestowal from another, and it is therefore restricted in its effect. Posters here could formerly exercise the ability to edit their posts indefinitely because the forum software enabled that, and they were but exercising their liberty to use the software. That is not privilege. The very least that should have preceded proscription of that liberty was forenotice, and debate or explanation.

de

 

[Dan 7.1]

if you all had typed in caps, at least it would have been amusing to read.

as it stands you all sound like spoiled children. this is a forum hosted and paid for by a single individual, which is none of you. as such, they can do whatever they please with the forum. if you are so offended by this move (and christ you need to find better things to whine about), then leave and find another forum. the amount of bitching over this has reached just simply ridiculous proportions.

 

[Unknown_K]

Why not just type "cause I said so" Dan 7.1 and save on the typing?

 

[Dan 7.1]

Why not just type "cause I said so" Dan 7.1 and save on the typing?

well...firstly because I didn't say so. I have nothing to do with the serving or regulation of this forum. secondly because...uh...i said so.

 

[Christopher]

Wow guys, chill....

 

[Mike Richardson]

I don't want this topic locked like the other one due to bickering. I would just like a response to my query.

 

[LCGuy]

At the moment, no changes are being considered to the policy. As far as I'm aware, the reasons for putting the policy in place have already been stated.

 

[Scott Baret]

The reasons were stated, but only after a poster inquired about the lack of an ability to edit the posts. I feel they should have been explained and justified when the change happened to warrant a change in the first place. I've never seen a move such as this one done in silence, only to be explained later, on any message board I've belonged to since I joined my first online group in 1997. This action, to me, was sneaky and unethical, as many of us depended on that feature to use this board to its fullest potential and now surprisingly find ourselves as less effective members of the community as a result.

I urge the moderator team to reconsider the current policy and to act in the best interest of the members of this board. There have been many valid points made against the decision implemented behind the scenes to take away an ability that has existed for some time. Hopefully the moderator team has read those posts and considered the statements made by various posters who are dissatisfied with this system.

 

[Mike Richardson]

At the moment, no changes are being considered to the policy. As far as I'm aware, the reasons for putting the policy in place have already been stated.

Can you at least agree that some of us may have raised some valid points?

 

[Flash!]

I think you've raised some very valid points. The bit about the first amendment was a little OTT, but the rest of the speech was great!

I get the shits that because of a few new kids crashing in who don't know how to behave yet, and/or because of forum software upgrades, the rest of us who have been here for years are the ones getting told to like-the-new-rules-or-else!

I think the courteous thing would be for the hardworking and under-appreciated site administrator to inform the 250 members who have been here since the macaddict schism, and the 500 or so long term members, what exactly it is about the remaining 250 members that makes membership purging and post editing limits and so forth necessary to have.

My point being: for such a low overall membership, what on earth is all the fuss about?

oh yeah, and I remember the days when you had to type sh*t instead of shit, so I guess that's progress

 

[Christopher]

shit

It would be nice that we would get told of changes. Normally we do, so why wasn't this?

 

[alk]

Wait... There's apparently no censor list, but there is a prohibition on editing posts?

 

[equill]

... as it stands you all sound like spoiled children. this is a forum hosted and paid for by a single individual, which is none of you ...

I contribute to this Forum—even only if but to read the latest contributions from others—because it is the most interesting to me, and because it is (almost) completely free of the foul-mouthed, inconsequential juvenilia that marked several other Mac-centric forums that I no longer bother with. It has, for as long as I have known it, been the best and most selflessly administered Forum, and I happily contribute my widow's mite from time to time to help defray its costs. The Forum's proprietor has never been, in any communication that I have had directly with him, anything but cogent, civil and helpful. His guiding hand has never been heavy, evidenced in that he has democratically spread the burden of moderation beyond his own hand alone.

It is the more startling then, to find that an unadvised change—not even necessarily of ~tl's own doing—has taken place, the only posted justification for which was shaky in its exegesis and execution. It's not a change that I should find burdensome except when I wish to add to or correct an older post, which is an infrequent need. You failed totally to rebut any of the arguments or answer any of the posted questions about this specific happening. Your ground for the accusation that others were bickering is, by comparison with the tenor of their posts, not very secure.

de

 

[Dan 7.1]

There is nothing to refute. I am not strictly opposed to "freedom" and all this other nonsense which has been brought up in reference to this forum, but what I am saying is that you are all, quite simply acting as if you are children who have been told to go into timeout and are now coming up with all the reasons you don't want to be in timeout.

Bringing up the Latin origins of "Privilege" and Scott listing all the amazing online accomplishments he's had in the past are utterly ridiculous. I've started forums, administrated forums, built websites, run computer stores, ate a 4-pancake stack, and yet somehow...all of these accomplishments are meaningless in regards to the 1 hour editing rule.

You are taking this relatively simple thing, which does not actually effect you all that greatly unless you really are so narcissistic as to read through your old posts and change them days, weeks, months after they've been up there and EVERYBODY HAS ALREADY READ THEM. You are blowing this way beyond its natural proportions and making it into a crusade for freedom and rights and "privileges" to which you are not entitled.

And I have no idea what ~tl being a "nice guy" has to do with it. I never made any comment about any of their character, I know a few of the "overlords" and they're fine people but I don't particularly care how they run the place especially considering they are "good people." If a change was put into effect, I will accept it as a change for the better and move on because this is, afterall, JUST an internet forum. Nothing that is said or "done" here really means anything, its not super important to the daily life of any of you and if it is I recommend finding something better to do with your time. This is a place to exchange knowledge and jokes and whatever else you might happen to come across on this crazy internet, and the relation to old-school Apples can sometime be tenuous but be that as it may its not meant to be something important.

My basic complaint is people going on massive rants and taking this WAY out of context. I ESPECIALLY find the boasting of "accomplishment" and the vibe of "we have unalienable rights" utterly distasteful in this setting. I do NOT suggest we be subservient, but there comes a time when you have to realize just how much of a douche you appear to be. Are you all so narcissistic that everything must cater to your will? There are definitely things to get riled up about, if all posts were suddenly moderated before displaying or if the forum became a closed community or something of that nature, but the post editing rule is simply not something worth breaking out all this damned drama over.

And considering none of you are actually reading all of this, and are instead fixating on a single sentence which you will then take entirely out of context and turn it to your will, I rarely find actually completing a thought in regards to my opinion rewarding on this forum.

 

[alk]

And considering none of you are actually reading all of this, and are instead fixating on a single sentence which you will then take entirely out of context and turn it to your will, I rarely find actually completing a thought in regards to my opinion rewarding on this forum.

Perhaps if you didn't use so many invectives, you would have more success in carrying on a civil discussion. At the same time you profess to be better than the posters above for not caring about the edit policy, you insult, belittle, and deride them. For someone who purports not to be acting childish about the edit policy, you sure show a lot of emotion about the topic and have a strange way of showing it.

I could sum up your point in one sentence: "It's an internet forum; get over it." I disagree with you about pretty much everything you've posted. Nobody is claiming an unalienable right to edit posts. People are thoughtfully expressing their opinions and reasons why users should be allowed to edit their posts, and the admins (Tom in particular) are remaining silent.

You, on the other hand, are issuing insults. Why should anyone take the time to debate with you when all they will receive in return is abuse?

Peace,

Drew