Concerning the editing post policy

[equill]

There is nothing to refute. I am ... I rarely find actually completing a thought in regards to my opinion rewarding on this forum.

QED

de

 

[Christopher]

Always keep this mental note.

Fighting on the internet is like competing in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

 

[equill]

Always keep this mental note.
Fighting on the internet is like competing in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

You are displaying a monochrome appreciation of an interchange that better deserves at least an eight-greys appreciation, if not 256. Life, including the liberty to disagree with the opinions of others, is not solely about antagonism, and you do yourself, your fellow-creatures and these forums no favour by seeing it as being so. Any expressed opinion depends on the quality of the argument that supports it. I disagreed with Dan 7.1's interjection into a reasoned discussion, and wrote so. He disagreed with me, as he is at complete liberty to do, but advanced no cogent reasons for his original post or his response. I didn't call him names, and he has not resorted to such infantilism, either. Does the digital generation really need a Smilie for 'reasoned disagreement' so that onlookers can adjust their emotional states?

You also might consider that preaching on the Web is as unproductive as what you characterize, rather unthinkingly, as fighting. There is enough preaching—of all kinds of gospels—surrounding daily life in modern Western society that more is not needed in a supposedly technological Forum such as this.

Further, your reference to those with physical disabilities as 'retarded' may not have been in the best taste, either.

de

 

[Flash!]

In any case, the silence from the administrator/s on this topic is deafening

 

[Dan 7.1]

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

Clearly you are reading some other forum. The above posts are paragraphs of all this ridiculous hooplah about privileges and latin and all kinds of other things. If you want to edit posts past the 1 hour point, just say "I think its wrong we can't edit posts past the 1 hour point" and leave it at that, it does not require so much defining of freedoms and rights.

To be clear, I think we SHOULD be able to edit posts beyond 1 hour, but its one of those rules which does not inhibit the user in any real significant way. If a situation arose where it became a real, true issue preventing people from doing what they want to do on this forum, then yes it would be time to make a stink. But going about it like this is the exact wrong way to do it.

I don't understand how the depth of intelligence being put into this post really matters all that much. Its a simple issue, some people find the inability to edit posts beyond 1 hour such a grievance that they must make these threads and others (such as myself) yell and wave around arms at the preposterousness of it all.

Some definitive reply from the administration would be appreciated, but I really do not think it is A: going to change and B: all that big of a deal.

And you are right, I do put alot of emotion into a debate but I could be debating the relative circumference of earth worms and it would probably turn out the same. I can be loud and obnoxious, and thats just sort of how it is. I don't spend tons of time putting these posts together so whatever is in it is just whats on my mind at the moment. It doesn't really garner much attention from me.

 

[Dog Cow]

In any case, the silence from the administrator/s on this topic is deafening

They're just going to wait for us to stop talking about, so we will "forget" and then nothing more will ever happen.

 

[John8520]

What's wrong with amending a for sale thread with a new post at the bottom? That way everything is in very obvious chronological order. As for changing ideas or fixing typos or whatever you guys could do what I do - type it into a text editor, read over it to make sure it says what you want and how to want it said, then copy/paste. If you absolutely have to edit a post an hour an one second later then I guess all I can do is shrug and say too bad.

 

[istar1018]

I have an idea! Let's start a fight, and give the mods an excuse to lock yet another thread asking about the editing posts policy! For the record, I believe that all of your mothers wear army boots.

Second, clearly this board's moderators are free to act however they see fit. They run the board, we voluntarily join it. If we don't like their changes, we can leave. That said, moderators: taking criticism into account could only engender goodwill. Why not respond to the concerns of Scott, Mike or the others? When members bring up legitimate issues, why not consider a change in policy instead of stating that "no changes are being considered?" You may find that people dislike participating in a forum with (what they perceive to be) unpredictable and unjust rules.

 

[Mike Richardson]

What's wrong with amending a for sale thread with a new post at the bottom? That way everything is in very obvious chronological order. As for changing ideas or fixing typos or whatever you guys could do what I do - type it into a text editor, read over it to make sure it says what you want and how to want it said, then copy/paste. If you absolutely have to edit a post an hour an one second later then I guess all I can do is shrug and say too bad.

New users to the thread will read the first post and then send a PM without reading the other posts. This wastes everyone's time. Even if they read all the amendment posts, then they have still wasted their own time. If we could just edit the top post, nobody's time is wasted, and the thread is kept a lot cleaner.

 

[Cory5412]

In my experience, whenever we have instated a new policy it's for a very good reason. In this case, part of it is to keep the history intact exactly as it happened. It's exactly as I posted in the other thread, I can't count the number of times somebody posted a thread, got unfavorable replies, then changed their original post so as to make it look like they had posted something that didn't warrant such replies.

Yes, it would be more convenient to be able to edit trading post threads. However I have no knowledge as to whether or not it's possible in this system. Plus, as it'd been said,

In terms of the addition of new rules without warning: There's nothing in the rules saying we can't do that. To take the store/restaurant analogy even painfully further. It's like we recently added security cameras and started seeing things we didn't like, so we put up noticeboards forbidding the theft of soda.

If we were run like a country, you would have the right to be angry that we've put up noticeboards forbidding the theft of soda (community resource or not) without documentation of some community-participation court case or other proceedings. However we're run like a store/restaurant, and it's therefore our right to be unhappy about your theft of our soda, and thus put up the warnings with no prior warning, and expect you to comply with the rule.

Hope this helps.

--CoryW.

 

[Mike Richardson]

In my experience, whenever we have instated a new policy it's for a very good reason. In this case, part of it is to keep the history intact exactly as it happened. It's exactly as I posted in the other thread, I can't count the number of times somebody posted a thread, got unfavorable replies, then changed their original post so as to make it look like they had posted something that didn't warrant such replies.
Yes, it would be more convenient to be able to edit trading post threads. However I have no knowledge as to whether or not it's possible in this system. Plus, as it'd been said,

In terms of the addition of new rules without warning: There's nothing in the rules saying we can't do that. To take the store/restaurant analogy even painfully further. It's like we recently added security cameras and started seeing things we didn't like, so we put up noticeboards forbidding the theft of soda.

If we were run like a country, you would have the right to be angry that we've put up noticeboards forbidding the theft of soda (community resource or not) without documentation of some community-participation court case or other proceedings. However we're run like a store/restaurant, and it's therefore our right to be unhappy about your theft of our soda, and thus put up the warnings with no prior warning, and expect you to comply with the rule.

Hope this helps.

--CoryW.

Nobody is debating the indisputable fact that you guys are in control of the rules and regulations of the forum.

I think what we are generally dissatisfied with is the fact you are running the forum like a store/restaurant instead of like a country.

I think it's more or less insulting to the membership here. The entire attitude that the moderators have taken - the whole "my way or the highway" mindset, it doesn't seem befitting of the moderators of a Macintosh forum.

I don't understand why you guys have to operate this way when you could just as easily have chosen to operate with a little more transparency. This is actually not a very large forum. There are maybe 100 frequent posters here and they have contributed over 80% of the posts.

When you ask for members' opinions, when you involve them in the process, when you consider their opinions, you make the members feel more engaged and ultimately satisfied when the final decision is actually made, even if the decision is against what some members may have lobbied for.

 

[Mike Richardson]

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.

I'll gladly host and pay for the entire forum. I even offered to host the forum once but was turned down.

 

[Cory5412]

My question is how anything would get done if we were to run the forum like a country. It's specifically because the forum is so small that it's a lot oeasier for everybody involve to moderate in somewhat of a reactionary style. We've been burned too many times by retroactive editing in certain threads, so we disabled it.

We understand the inconvenience that this brings everybody in either needing to have a moderator amend posts, in addition to the massive amounts of energy it must consume to be so negative about the whole arrangement, plus the few additional moments it will take somebody to read a thread in its entirety before sending a PM, as well as the time it will take to reply to one or two additional PMs in any given day, in response to a trading post thread.

In terms of community input: that's what the General News & Stuff forum is for. Threads like this, which on other forums would probably have netted you some disciplinary action, and been outright deleted, not simply locked and left for public review. (in reference to the previous thread.)

There's the bug tracker thread and a variety of other threads where things like this have been discussed, at length or otherwise. If a mod or admin isn't replying it's because they have nothing to say, have no say in that area, or have already said what needed to be said.

 

[macgeek417]

From what i've seen, it appears that more people are against this change in rules than for it. When changing the rules here, the mods should take in to consideration that they won't be effected by some rules, such as this one, because the mods can always edit/delete they're own or anybody else's. It's the members here that are negitively effected here.

 

[Mike Richardson]

My question is how anything would get done if we were to run the forum like a country. It's specifically because the forum is so small that it's a lot oeasier for everybody involve to moderate in somewhat of a reactionary style. We've been burned too many times by retroactive editing in certain threads, so we disabled it.
We understand the inconvenience that this brings everybody in either needing to have a moderator amend posts, in addition to the massive amounts of energy it must consume to be so negative about the whole arrangement, plus the few additional moments it will take somebody to read a thread in its entirety before sending a PM, as well as the time it will take to reply to one or two additional PMs in any given day, in response to a trading post thread.

You belittle my arguments against retroactive editing in regards to trading post threads, and then claim that if the moderators were to show some transparency and interest in what the members had to say, that the entire forum would come grinding to a halt.

Again, it's a small forum - how hard would it be for one of you to have made a simple poll:

"Should we restrict post editing to 60 minutes after the post is made? Some people have abused this liberty."

- Yes

- No

Let the poll sit for a couple of days, check the results, and then consider that in your decision. It's not as if in those few days complete anarchy will take hold because perhaps up to one post might be edited retroactively in a malicious way.

I'm also curious if you can reference a thread where malicious abuse of editing has actually taken place.

In terms of community input: that's what the General News & Stuff forum is for. Threads like this, which on other forums would probably have netted you some disciplinary action, and been outright deleted, not simply locked and left for public review. (in reference to the previous thread.)

Now you know why I don't post on very many forums as it is. If 68kMLA continues in this way, it too will probably fall off the short list.

 

[Scott Baret]

I agree with Mike. We should take a vote on this since, as has been mentioned, most of the public appears to be against this change. It only seems to hurt those who don't have moderator status.

 

[macgeek417]

But making a poll would constsiute reprehensable anarchy!

 

[II2II]

The rule exists.

It was put into place for a reason.

Learn how to deal with it.

Don't make the life of the mods miserable.

These are their forums, not yours.

They should not have to deal with this.

You're stealing their time.

 

[defor]

You know, I'm not a mod here, and I respect and enjoy the community that this site is based upon, but:

1) The internet is not a democracy

2) If a rule is put in place by a moderator, it's probably for a GOOD reason, not just to make everyone mad

3) If it does make you mad, and you can't deal with the way things are handled, etc. LEAVE and make your own site.

68kmla is actually probably the least moderated of 5 communities (non-mac related) that I frequent.

It's also the most chaotic, and unmanaged, with posts and threads that common courtesy and common sense dictate should not even have graced the scene.

You want a say in how things are managed, ask politely. If you're told no, let it rest.

The most you can achieve by making polls, aggravating the management, and generally raising a ruckus is an administratve team that doesn't want to deal with you or your problems.

The rules are there as a set of guidelines. Realistically, any mod has the RIGHT to delete your posts, threads, restrict your access levels, and even ban your accounts as they see fit. They are granting you a certain amount of access and freedoms here which you should be thankful for.

Personally, while this change affects some of my usage of the forums, I'm not upset.

Mike, if readers of your posts don't scroll to the end to see that you appended your original post, well perhaps that should be the issue more addressed. A number of people I have noticed will post based on the initial message, not the thread that follows.

In this specific case, a rule was changed, more than likely for a reason to protect our interests, but it is NOT their responsibility to inform the members here in advance, nor of the reasons.

The internet is not subject to your "Bill of Rights", or any other freedoms you think you may enjoy. Any rights you have here are granted by those running the whole shebang. If you don't like it, get off the train or make your own.

 

[Mike Richardson]

So long, and thanks for all the fish.