Thread
Concerning the editing post policy
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.
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.
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 Suppose, for example, the first amendment is repealed.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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The editing policy is a bandaide for other issues. If people go too far in posting things not appropriate to the forum then maybe they should get a warning and if they continue then get kicked out (same with the IRC channels).
Some people like to push things and if there is nobody pushing back they continue to do what they like.
All you get when you say "if you don't like it get the hell out" is a forum full of troublemakers when the others decide to do just that and leave.
Some people like to push things and if there is nobody pushing back they continue to do what they like.
All you get when you say "if you don't like it get the hell out" is a forum full of troublemakers when the others decide to do just that and leave.
One person 'owns' the URL and the responsibility for legality and decorum at this site. A handful of people administer and moderate the site. Several hundred other people create the Forum by their contributions and posts. Without these latter there is only a URL, but there is no Forum. I am not inside ~tl's head, but I find it difficult to believe that his intention was for a forum of half-a-dozen contributors.
The catalyst for this thread is puzzling. The change in 'rule'—no matter how minuscule or maximal posters may find its effect to be—is difficult to understand without adequate explanation for its introduction.
If another post has intervened between a first post and its edit, there is already a flag that the post has been edited. If the original text must be preserved as a consequence of some present threat to the Forum's owner, It cannot be swingeingly difficult to arrange that both original and edited text be displayed in red or purple text, or in 'strikethrough' and underline à la MS Word, or whatever, making it more obvious that the original has been changed. None of us should have any difficulty in co-operating to preserve this Forum against external threat. If the catalyst for the rule-change were of lesser magnitude, such as maintenance of decorum, most of us would probably be able to digest and comply with that. To be fobbed-off with a fiat and weak non-explanations has been the burr under the saddle for almost all of the preceding posts. Knowing compliance will be more effective than seemingly capricious imposition as a tool for good order in this Forum, even if governments have yet to absorb that kind of thought.
de
The catalyst for this thread is puzzling. The change in 'rule'—no matter how minuscule or maximal posters may find its effect to be—is difficult to understand without adequate explanation for its introduction.
If another post has intervened between a first post and its edit, there is already a flag that the post has been edited. If the original text must be preserved as a consequence of some present threat to the Forum's owner, It cannot be swingeingly difficult to arrange that both original and edited text be displayed in red or purple text, or in 'strikethrough' and underline à la MS Word, or whatever, making it more obvious that the original has been changed. None of us should have any difficulty in co-operating to preserve this Forum against external threat. If the catalyst for the rule-change were of lesser magnitude, such as maintenance of decorum, most of us would probably be able to digest and comply with that. To be fobbed-off with a fiat and weak non-explanations has been the burr under the saddle for almost all of the preceding posts. Knowing compliance will be more effective than seemingly capricious imposition as a tool for good order in this Forum, even if governments have yet to absorb that kind of thought.
de
It's not the change in rules per se that pisses me off - it's the lack of communication about it.
The Forum Rules, if you bother to read them, are complete bullshit anyway. This place is not the place it is because of "the rules", it's all the great people that come here and a crapload of mutual respect.
Something changed, a few people respectfully asked if that something could be changed back, and so far those people have been shat on by admin.
If admin would like to change the rules willy nilly, as is apparently their right in this non-democratic forum, then the least they could do is show a teensie eensie little bit of respect
edit: typo
The Forum Rules, if you bother to read them, are complete bullshit anyway. This place is not the place it is because of "the rules", it's all the great people that come here and a crapload of mutual respect.
Something changed, a few people respectfully asked if that something could be changed back, and so far those people have been shat on by admin.
If admin would like to change the rules willy nilly, as is apparently their right in this non-democratic forum, then the least they could do is show a teensie eensie little bit of respect
edit: typo
Forgive my ignorance, but I suppose phpBB does not present an option to the moderators to allow edits in perpetuity, but protect the original text? Is it possible to allow the insertion of new text only, leaving the rest of the post untouched? (EDIT: I know you're expecting new text to come in the form of a new post, but the goal here is to preserve the Trading Post's value to the membership, right?)
Alternatively, would it be possible to compromise here and allowing editing, but firmly require that all editing be preceded by an "EDIT:" prompt, leaving original text intact? Surely it would be possible to affect the privileges of users that disregard such a requirement.
Alternatively, would it be possible to compromise here and allowing editing, but firmly require that all editing be preceded by an "EDIT:" prompt, leaving original text intact? Surely it would be possible to affect the privileges of users that disregard such a requirement.
If people are following a thread, and someone edits their post, The people already following the thread can point out that the person has changed their post, along with the tag at the bottom of the post that says "this message has been edited by x (poster)at x (time)". I know several forums that have problems with flame wars and such, but the person in the wrong is always exposed by the edit tags and by anyone following the thread.
As for changing major things that might negatively affect the majority of the people without telling them first, this is the only forum site I know that has ever done that. Also, i know a forum (not mac related) that is so lenient, and the members are so civil, the only thing the moderators ever need to do is remove spam, and that was the reason they were put in place to start with.
Also, I too, would like to see a reference to a thread where a person changing their post caused any serious problems. I've never seen a single thread/post on any forum site I've read/posted on where it wasn't blatantly obvious that someone was trying to save face by editing their post.
Plus, as posted several times before in this thread, and I believe the other, Isn't there a way to save the original text and show where the edits are?
As for changing major things that might negatively affect the majority of the people without telling them first, this is the only forum site I know that has ever done that. Also, i know a forum (not mac related) that is so lenient, and the members are so civil, the only thing the moderators ever need to do is remove spam, and that was the reason they were put in place to start with.
Also, I too, would like to see a reference to a thread where a person changing their post caused any serious problems. I've never seen a single thread/post on any forum site I've read/posted on where it wasn't blatantly obvious that someone was trying to save face by editing their post.
Plus, as posted several times before in this thread, and I believe the other, Isn't there a way to save the original text and show where the edits are?
Quite honestly, I rarely post, and usually lurk on the forums here. I'm quite active in the irc, but thats another thing. Lets put this into perspective. You all are arguing on the internet. I dont need to repeat the old adage about arguing on the internet, let alone arguing on a 68k mac enthusiast forum. This thread is obnoxious in three ways. 1), it really shows no respect for the mods. In the real world, 90% of the things a government does it does in secret. The public gets very little say, never finds out, in the end it all works out for the better and tough luck if they do find out and it was wrong. 2) It really isnt that big of a deal. 3) If you wanted to argue about something, you could argue about something halfway useful and thats related to what we do here, like how the forum system is no longer viewable on a 68k mac.
Where does this assumption that we the people run the forum and the site would just fall apart if a choice few left? To some extent the place exists as a community, but the way its all held together is a forum, and everyone cant be a mod at once. The ones who are mods do their best, and do a damn good job. It seems soon as a mod or an admin exercises their authority people get all bent out of shape over something retarded like this. What is this, a rallying call against the MLA? by the "MLA"? I find it quite hilarious the the majority of the MLA userbase didnt even notice, but the same people who always make a stink find it as bad as murdering babies and then using them to paint their house.
Grow up people. You cant always have everything your way, and its not like anything has really changed. Your mods didnt change, your people didnt change, the MLA didnt change, the way the forum system works changed. Thats all. If you cant handle a small and quite insignificant change such as this, then please, dont come back. We dont need that in the community. It feels as tho its a power struggle that needs not exist.
Anyways, I fear if I continue reading this thread or posting in it I'll loose a few more IQ points than I already have.
//wthww
Where does this assumption that we the people run the forum and the site would just fall apart if a choice few left? To some extent the place exists as a community, but the way its all held together is a forum, and everyone cant be a mod at once. The ones who are mods do their best, and do a damn good job. It seems soon as a mod or an admin exercises their authority people get all bent out of shape over something retarded like this. What is this, a rallying call against the MLA? by the "MLA"? I find it quite hilarious the the majority of the MLA userbase didnt even notice, but the same people who always make a stink find it as bad as murdering babies and then using them to paint their house.
Grow up people. You cant always have everything your way, and its not like anything has really changed. Your mods didnt change, your people didnt change, the MLA didnt change, the way the forum system works changed. Thats all. If you cant handle a small and quite insignificant change such as this, then please, dont come back. We dont need that in the community. It feels as tho its a power struggle that needs not exist.
Anyways, I fear if I continue reading this thread or posting in it I'll loose a few more IQ points than I already have.
//wthww
No forum system is perfect, though many strive for perfection. Members may disagree with aspects of the forum's policies or administration. 68kMLA is no different.
However, at this time, the 68kMLA represents the best possible forum for the discussion of 68K Macintosh computers. Until such time that I am made aware of a better forum, I will embrace and respect the policies of this forum.
All I ask in return is that the 68kMLA continues to strive for perfection.
I apologize for contributing to this mess. Let's put it to a rest guys.
However, at this time, the 68kMLA represents the best possible forum for the discussion of 68K Macintosh computers. Until such time that I am made aware of a better forum, I will embrace and respect the policies of this forum.
All I ask in return is that the 68kMLA continues to strive for perfection.
I apologize for contributing to this mess. Let's put it to a rest guys.
I have already stated the reason for limiting edits in the first thread on this topic and I think they've been repeated since, so I won't go in to them. I didn't make an announcement about it at the time because, frankly, I didn't think it was that big of a deal. I guess I may have overlooked the specific requirements of the 'Trading Post' forum when making my assessment. However, aside from that specific case I still can't see many reasons why old posts would need to be edited on a regular basis. Sure, you may notice a spelling/grammar mistake, but that's the reason for the edit period. After this, a PM to one of our friendly moderation staff will (in most cases) get the post edited for you. It may be best to use the "report post" functionality to send a request – as this will be seen by all moderation staff. Of course, with this limitiation the old adage "think before you speak post" becomes more relevant than ever. I personally make good use of the forum's "preview" functionality to read over my posts before I submit them and I encourage everyone else to do the same.
The 'Trading Post' forum is a unique case where the ability to edit posts in retrospect is a worthwhile thing to update listings, etc. Unfortunately, phpBB has an all or nothing approach when it comes to this, so there is no way to enable editing past the limit in only one forum. phpBB also doesn't have any sort of edit versioning/history system which someone mentioned – if it did that would obviously be a preferable solution. While I understand that this is a bit of an inconvenience, all I can ask is that you appreciate why we've brought in this limitation and make the best of it.
As for the membership purges, since someone brought them up, they are necessary to curb the number of spambot "sleeper" accounts* that we have had since the upgrade to phpBB3. Since the reCAPTCHA plug-in we were using before doesn't work with phpBB3, we have had to put up with an increased level of these type of accounts registering. It's a pretty arduous task to go through the new registrations and weed out these one by one (we were getting in the region of 30 a day for a while), so realistically a purge is the only way to do it. Sure, it may catch the odd member who has signed up but hadn't got round to posting, but I'd think that the ratio is pretty low. It does not affect any member who has made at least one post, so shouldn't make a difference to anyone else. I've recently been experimenting with adding some anti-spambot questions to the registration page (as I mentioned here) which seems to have worked nicely – so hopefully in the future I won't have to do these purges quite so often.
Cheers all,
~T
* Accounts that sign up and have links in their profile with the intention of raising their Google PageRank (etc) but never post spam and hence never get noticed.
The 'Trading Post' forum is a unique case where the ability to edit posts in retrospect is a worthwhile thing to update listings, etc. Unfortunately, phpBB has an all or nothing approach when it comes to this, so there is no way to enable editing past the limit in only one forum. phpBB also doesn't have any sort of edit versioning/history system which someone mentioned – if it did that would obviously be a preferable solution. While I understand that this is a bit of an inconvenience, all I can ask is that you appreciate why we've brought in this limitation and make the best of it.
As for the membership purges, since someone brought them up, they are necessary to curb the number of spambot "sleeper" accounts* that we have had since the upgrade to phpBB3. Since the reCAPTCHA plug-in we were using before doesn't work with phpBB3, we have had to put up with an increased level of these type of accounts registering. It's a pretty arduous task to go through the new registrations and weed out these one by one (we were getting in the region of 30 a day for a while), so realistically a purge is the only way to do it. Sure, it may catch the odd member who has signed up but hadn't got round to posting, but I'd think that the ratio is pretty low. It does not affect any member who has made at least one post, so shouldn't make a difference to anyone else. I've recently been experimenting with adding some anti-spambot questions to the registration page (as I mentioned here) which seems to have worked nicely – so hopefully in the future I won't have to do these purges quite so often.
Cheers all,
~T
* Accounts that sign up and have links in their profile with the intention of raising their Google PageRank (etc) but never post spam and hence never get noticed.
I still do not like the new policy. However, it is clear that the path I was going down was not the one to a solution.
Tom has stated that if he could change the Trading Post only to allow unlimited retroactive editing, then he would. This would be a fair compromise and I am glad that Tom sees the advantages of unlimited editing in the Trading Post forum.
The following modification lets you set time limits per forum and even per user: http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=1346435
Tom has stated that if he could change the Trading Post only to allow unlimited retroactive editing, then he would. This would be a fair compromise and I am glad that Tom sees the advantages of unlimited editing in the Trading Post forum.
The following modification lets you set time limits per forum and even per user: http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=1346435
Unfortunately, due to the fact that installing phpBB's mods requires modification the base code, upgrading the forum becomes a complete hassle. Even with the relatively few updates we had installed back on the phpBB2 forum, each phpBB update took hours to install. I'm a bit reluctant to start installing mods on the forum, since phpBB3 does most of the things we need out of the box.
I'm not familiar with the phpBB code, but there's probably a much simpler mod one could do to open up editing in one forum.
I'm assuming the code to check for the time limitation is something like this:
Code:
if (post_time > the_time_limitation)
{
fail;
}
Code:
if (post_time > the_time_limitation AND sub_forum != 4)
{
fail;
} - The line of code controlling the display of the "Edit" button
- The line of code which prohibits the Edit form from displaying
- The line of code which prohibits the actual edit from occurring
I hope you'll keep it in mind. Thanks for your time.
For some reason, the post above has been edited. I had originally included a statement about phpBB's AutoMOD software. Additionally, the psuedo-code snippets were converted to actual CODE blocks.
While I don't mind the psuedo-code modification, I am extremely puzzled as to why my statement concerning AutoMOD was removed.
Perhaps it was a mistake while changing the code blocks. In any case, here is the link to AutoMOD again: http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1428495
Thanks for your time.
While I don't mind the psuedo-code modification, I am extremely puzzled as to why my statement concerning AutoMOD was removed.
Perhaps it was a mistake while changing the code blocks. In any case, here is the link to AutoMOD again: http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1428495
Thanks for your time.
I know it's not an exact parallel, but my experience with the RetroChallenge has shown that if you want things to run smoothly someone has to take charge... back in 2006 we had so much debate over the rules that the RetroChallenge never officially happened. In subsequent years it's become quite evident that the most vocal debaters are the ones who participate least (if at all) in the actual RetroChallenge.
I'm not saying input from the proles is always a bad thing, but quite often it's just more expedient for an individual or small group to take the reigns and basically just get things done. Even in the world's greatest democracy you, as a citizen, don't get a say in every law that's passed... the system would grind to a halt.
I'm not saying input from the proles is always a bad thing, but quite often it's just more expedient for an individual or small group to take the reigns and basically just get things done. Even in the world's greatest democracy you, as a citizen, don't get a say in every law that's passed... the system would grind to a halt.
However, there is still an explanation about everything.
A good case is copyright law, which tends to change overnight and behind everyone's back. Despite the media not reporting on it there are still places one can go to hear an explanation of the new laws, bills, and whatnot. They may not be calling everyone's name like, say, NBC News, but they do exist.
Even if there had been a comment about this in the rule section when it was done I would have been satisfied.
That doesn't mean the owner must have a dictatorship, only that it is one possible management style out of several that they can choose from. At one end you have dictatorship and the other end anarchy (basically USENET) and I think the best policy is somewhere in the middle.
So there I am trying to answer something tomlee59 said on recelled batteries sometimes working and sometimes not. Since I have some complicated stuff to get straight I quote him and go thru many, many, many preview cycles to get it right so I do not to have to ask someone later to please, please fix it for me.
I finally get it almost right, the part about connecting wires in the right order, the specific chips used in the battery monitor and why, the links to the chip datasheets, the ways the gas gauge can fail, the precise requirements for replacement cell matching, all stuff not easily found on the internet if at all.
One more preview needed to see if the url links need special treatment to be completely displayed in the posted message. Then if they are ok I can then submit just once. But I never get beyond the next preview...
KA-BOOM!
Suddenly it thinks I am not logged on.
It says I need to be logged on to quote a message.
Everything I typed in is gone.
Maybe I cannot even spend more than an hour COMPOSING a message.
Why do I even bother trying to help? >
I finally get it almost right, the part about connecting wires in the right order, the specific chips used in the battery monitor and why, the links to the chip datasheets, the ways the gas gauge can fail, the precise requirements for replacement cell matching, all stuff not easily found on the internet if at all.
One more preview needed to see if the url links need special treatment to be completely displayed in the posted message. Then if they are ok I can then submit just once. But I never get beyond the next preview...
KA-BOOM!
Suddenly it thinks I am not logged on.
It says I need to be logged on to quote a message.
Everything I typed in is gone.
Maybe I cannot even spend more than an hour COMPOSING a message.
Why do I even bother trying to help? >
I know I know, what a pain in the arts! I've had problems with preview dumping my text too.
The only thing I can suggest is that you submit your "draft" and then jump back in and edit it...before you hour is up.
As a side note, ~tl if you're reading....while understanding that you don't wish people to edit their posts retrospectively, how about changing the time limit to 2 hours?
The only thing I can suggest is that you submit your "draft" and then jump back in and edit it...before you hour is up.
As a side note, ~tl if you're reading....while understanding that you don't wish people to edit their posts retrospectively, how about changing the time limit to 2 hours?
Or we could just change it back to the way it was before this limit was imposed. I've been thinking about this and have read over all the rules and have found this change to be "unconstitutional" as per our rules because of this:
Nowhere does it say that a submission becomes property of 68KMLA. If our posts are truly ours and do not become anyone else's property, then we should be able to modify our property, just as we can modify our own artwork, computer program, etc. Some websites do state that content posted on them/written on them is now property of the entity who owns it, but this one does not, meaning that it is still our property.
Furthermore, if a new disclaimer property is imposed, I believe we should be able to edit any post we made prior to the date the new rule was enacted (this should be true for any post edit as well). This is basically stating that there should be no ex post facto here. (Ex post facto states that one's past actions are now impacted by a law; for example, if a law stating that one cannot say the word "the" was enacted in 2004, someone can now be tried for saying it in 2003 before the law was passed). I'm not sure if there are any government systems even using ex post facto these days (I know the US outlawed it when the Constitution was written).
Please take all of this into consideration. As the current documentation reads now these posts are property of the posters and therefore we should be allowed to do what we want with them.
Nowhere does it say that a submission becomes property of 68KMLA. If our posts are truly ours and do not become anyone else's property, then we should be able to modify our property, just as we can modify our own artwork, computer program, etc. Some websites do state that content posted on them/written on them is now property of the entity who owns it, but this one does not, meaning that it is still our property.
Furthermore, if a new disclaimer property is imposed, I believe we should be able to edit any post we made prior to the date the new rule was enacted (this should be true for any post edit as well). This is basically stating that there should be no ex post facto here. (Ex post facto states that one's past actions are now impacted by a law; for example, if a law stating that one cannot say the word "the" was enacted in 2004, someone can now be tried for saying it in 2003 before the law was passed). I'm not sure if there are any government systems even using ex post facto these days (I know the US outlawed it when the Constitution was written).
Please take all of this into consideration. As the current documentation reads now these posts are property of the posters and therefore we should be allowed to do what we want with them.
I agree with both of you, however according to ~tl there has been "problems" people editing posts retrospectively (this was news to most of us!)
Given that this forum is "owned" by ~coxy, cinemafia and ~tl (and others?) they get to write the rules. I accept that. However I strenuosly object to the way in which some of the new rules were implemented - especially the way in which we were "ridden rough shod"
It's a forum: flame wars, trolls, arguments et al ARE always going to happen - especially by the more juvenile minded. However I think that most of us would be able to recognise the rare instances where someone has modified their post, and dismiss it as being insignificant. Personally I think that those "few people" should be named and shamed, have their threads locked, account suspended or deleted, or some other such thing. I detest the fact that so often in society the actions of "a few" affects all the rest of us "the many"
As I've mentioned before, I really appreciate the work and effort that the forum admins put into this place. It is my favourite corner of the internet
Back to the point in question, post editing, I would prefer to have no limit as i think that the pros out-weigh the cons. But I feel that if we are going to have a limit, then two hours would be a suitable middle-ground for all concerned.
Given that this forum is "owned" by ~coxy, cinemafia and ~tl (and others?) they get to write the rules. I accept that. However I strenuosly object to the way in which some of the new rules were implemented - especially the way in which we were "ridden rough shod"
It's a forum: flame wars, trolls, arguments et al ARE always going to happen - especially by the more juvenile minded. However I think that most of us would be able to recognise the rare instances where someone has modified their post, and dismiss it as being insignificant. Personally I think that those "few people" should be named and shamed, have their threads locked, account suspended or deleted, or some other such thing. I detest the fact that so often in society the actions of "a few" affects all the rest of us "the many"
As I've mentioned before, I really appreciate the work and effort that the forum admins put into this place. It is my favourite corner of the internet
Back to the point in question, post editing, I would prefer to have no limit as i think that the pros out-weigh the cons. But I feel that if we are going to have a limit, then two hours would be a suitable middle-ground for all concerned.
My suggestion is to either use an online word processor that automatically saves (and tracks) changes, such as adobe buzzword or google documents, or to use a local text editor (like textedit, notepad/wordpad or gedit or nano) to draft your posts. This way they won't be lost at all.
The loss when you take forever editing in the web interface is not a result of the one-hour post limit, it's because your session with the site has timed out, and when you logged in, you didn't check the "log me in automatically" box, (at least this is what I'm guessing) so the cookies/session/server-connection timed out. Drafting your posts and then pasting them in when they have reached the desired level of perfection would solve this issue. (an issue that existed before the post editing policy was put in place.)
The loss when you take forever editing in the web interface is not a result of the one-hour post limit, it's because your session with the site has timed out, and when you logged in, you didn't check the "log me in automatically" box, (at least this is what I'm guessing) so the cookies/session/server-connection timed out. Drafting your posts and then pasting them in when they have reached the desired level of perfection would solve this issue. (an issue that existed before the post editing policy was put in place.)