About editing posts

[ShadowDude112]

The general idea of removing your content in such a manner does seem to be frowned upon here. Staff comments on the Fox666 matter back when it happened weren't "it's his content, let him do as he pleases", it was "we wish we had caught on earlier so we could have suspended his account to prevent the loss of all his contributions". Like I mentioned earlier, we give up true freedom of speech in exchange for better of the community when agreeing to join the forum; something I don't have a problem with. I enjoy the community here way more than many other places. With that already in place, I honestly don't see how this case would be all that different.

I'm not saying the staff will do anything about it, because it's not a rampant problem. But if they decided it was something worth looking into and opted to implement some sort of system to prevent the problem for the community, well...it's their site and their rules. If someone doesn't like it, it wouldn't be the first time I saw Mike post something telling people there are other places to go that may better suit said poster.

I don't remember why Fox666 got mad. What happened to even cause that? But yeah, everything here is exactly why I think there should be something against stuff like that.

[Kamiccolo9]

The general idea of removing your content in such a manner does seem to be frowned upon here. Staff comments on the Fox666 matter back when it happened weren't "it's his content, let him do as he pleases", it was "we wish we had caught on earlier so we could have suspended his account to prevent the loss of all his contributions". Like I mentioned earlier, we give up true freedom of speech in exchange for better of the community when agreeing to join the forum; something I don't have a problem with. I enjoy the community here way more than many other places. With that already in place, I honestly don't see how this case would be all that different.

I'm not saying the staff will do anything about it, because it's not a rampant problem. But if they decided it was something worth looking into and opted to implement some sort of system to prevent the problem for the community, well...it's their site and their rules. If someone doesn't like it, it wouldn't be the first time I saw Mike post something telling people there are other places to go that may better suit said poster.

Both Facebook and Youtube allow deletion of content, no matter how old it is, or how much discussion has been generated by it. The staff are within their rights to make a rule against something like this, although I would argue against it if the discussion came up, but let's leave aside the "morality" of the situation for now, as that's something we're not going to agree on, and move onto the practicality of it.

How does one go about preventing this in a way that doesn't make editing their posts more difficult for the members who aren't trying to delete their own content?

[MarcFBR]

I'd say lock editing options so people can't edit after a few hours at most. By that point the conversation will either move on to new posts, or it's just unnecessary to edit.

[Kamiccolo9]

I'd say lock editing options so people can't edit after a few hours at most. By that point the conversation will either move on to new posts, or it's just unnecessary to edit.

Except we have numerous threads in which the OP is constantly updated. News threads, fanwork collections, guides, etc.

[ShadowDude112]

I'd say lock editing options so people can't edit after a few hours at most. By that point the conversation will either move on to new posts, or it's just unnecessary to edit.

Except we have numerous threads in which the OP is constantly updated. News threads, fanwork collections, guides, etc.

Is it really that important to keep the OP updated? It doesn't seem like it. Sure, it's convenient, but not necessary.

[Kamiccolo9]

I'd say lock editing options so people can't edit after a few hours at most. By that point the conversation will either move on to new posts, or it's just unnecessary to edit.

Except we have numerous threads in which the OP is constantly updated. News threads, fanwork collections, guides, etc.

Is it really that important to keep the OP updated? It doesn't seem like it. Sure, it's convenient, but not necessary.

Why should a few people being spiteful be justification to inconvenience the vast majority of people? We don't prohibit posting images just because a few assholes have occasionally spammed porn.

[ShadowDude112]

Except we have numerous threads in which the OP is constantly updated. News threads, fanwork collections, guides, etc.

Is it really that important to keep the OP updated? It doesn't seem like it. Sure, it's convenient, but not necessary.

Why should a few people being spiteful be justification to inconvenience the vast majority of people? We don't prohibit posting images just because a few assholes have occasionally spammed porn.

It's more inconvenient to not be able to see what people contributed to a thread.

[TheDevilsCorpse]

If it can be done with different rules on the different forum sections, I'd say leave the "Website & Community Discussion", "Staff Help Requests" and "Fan-Created Works" sections alone and only impose the edit limit on the rest of the forum. While convenient in some cases for games and the like, the other sections have much less of a need for the first post of the threads to be updated. The few exceptions are usually topics by Herms, and as a staff member he'd have control over the editing anyway.

[Kamiccolo9]

It's more inconvenient to not be able to see what people contributed to a thread.

That's not your call to make.

If it can be done with different rules on the different forum sections, I'd say leave the "Website & Community Discussion", "Staff Help Requests" and "Fan-Created Works" sections alone and only impose the edit limit on the rest of the forum. While convenient in some cases for games and the like, the other sections have much less of a need for the first post of the threads to be updated. The few exceptions are usually topics by Herms, and as a staff member he'd have control over the editing anyway.

Video Games, for news on upcoming games in their respective threads.
General Discussion, for things like Bullza's ratings and theater threads.
In-Universe, for people who decide to make their own guides.

And by this point, that's half the forum.

[ShadowDude112]

It's more inconvenient to not be able to see what people contributed to a thread.

That's not your call to make.

Is it though. I stated my opinion. It's more inconvenient to not read other's contributions than to edit the OP. Why are you telling me that my opinon is a decision I can somehow make on the forum?

If it can be done with different rules on the different forum sections, I'd say leave the "Website & Community Discussion", "Staff Help Requests" and "Fan-Created Works" sections alone and only impose the edit limit on the rest of the forum. While convenient in some cases for games and the like, the other sections have much less of a need for the first post of the threads to be updated. The few exceptions are usually topics by Herms, and as a staff member he'd have control over the editing anyway.

Video Games, for news on upcoming games in their respective threads.
General Discussion, for things like Bullza's ratings and theater threads.
In-Universe, for people who decide to make their own guides.

And by this point, that's half the forum.

Okay? It really seems by this point you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You keep talking in circles.

[Kaboom]

As someone who has a dedicated thread for a long-running fanworks project, and who goes back to add links to the "table of contents" in the first post of that thread with each new update every few months... I'd very much like to keep the ability to edit my old posts (mod privileges notwithstanding), please and thanks.

This is something where problems are few and far between and are much better dealt with on a cake-by-cake basis. There's absolutely no good reason to establish a rule or impose a forum mechanic for something that only might be a problem 0.1% of the time.

[Kamiccolo9]

It's more inconvenient to not be able to see what people contributed to a thread.

That's not your call to make.

Is it though. I stated my opinion. It's more inconvenient to not read other's contributions than to edit the OP. Why are you telling me that my opinon is a decision I can somehow make on the forum?

If it can be done with different rules on the different forum sections, I'd say leave the "Website & Community Discussion", "Staff Help Requests" and "Fan-Created Works" sections alone and only impose the edit limit on the rest of the forum. While convenient in some cases for games and the like, the other sections have much less of a need for the first post of the threads to be updated. The few exceptions are usually topics by Herms, and as a staff member he'd have control over the editing anyway.

Video Games, for news on upcoming games in their respective threads.
General Discussion, for things like Bullza's ratings and theater threads.
In-Universe, for people who decide to make their own guides.

And by this point, that's half the forum.

Okay? It really seems by this point you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You keep talking in circles.

When your argument consists of "it's annoying," then no. That's subjective, and doesn't really give you any bearing on how things "should be" for everyone.

If you're not willing to actually read the arguments that I've been making, I would respectfully ask you to leave the discussion to The Devil's Corpse, who has been helpful enough to at least propose changes, not just complain.

[ShadowDude112]

When your argument consists of "it's annoying," then no. That's subjective, and doesn't really give you any bearing on how things "should be."

If you're not willing to actually read the arguments that I've been making, I would respectfully ask you to leave the discussion to The Devil's Corpse, who has been helpful enough to at least propose changes, not just complain.

I have been contributing. I said that a mod could approve it. I mentioned that it ruins discussions when posts are just deleted and left with one character.

[Kamiccolo9]

When your argument consists of "it's annoying," then no. That's subjective, and doesn't really give you any bearing on how things "should be."

If you're not willing to actually read the arguments that I've been making, I would respectfully ask you to leave the discussion to The Devil's Corpse, who has been helpful enough to at least propose changes, not just complain.

I have been contributing. I said that a mod could approve it. I mentioned that it ruins discussions when posts are just deleted and left with one character.

I addressed why requiring mod approval could be a problem, and you ignored it. It doesn't ruin "discussions," it's "ruined" ancient threads that you were reading one day when you were bored. There was no "discussion" going on.

[ShadowDude112]

When your argument consists of "it's annoying," then no. That's subjective, and doesn't really give you any bearing on how things "should be."

If you're not willing to actually read the arguments that I've been making, I would respectfully ask you to leave the discussion to The Devil's Corpse, who has been helpful enough to at least propose changes, not just complain.

I have been contributing. I said that a mod could approve it. I mentioned that it ruins discussions when posts are just deleted and left with one character.

I addressed why requiring mod approval could be a problem, and you ignored it. It doesn't ruin "discussions," it's "ruined" ancient threads that you were reading one day when you were bored. There was no "discussion" going on.

But it ruins the discussions of those threads. Yeah, they're old and inactive, but it doesn't help that if someone looks back, they'll be confused as to why someone has like over 1000 posts with just the letter b in most of them.

[Kamiccolo9]

But it ruins the discussions of those threads. Yeah, they're old and inactive, but it doesn't help that if someone looks back, they'll be confused as to why someone has like over 1000 posts with just the letter b in most of them.

Well, sad to say, that's their problem. If a person decides to burn all bridges with the community, you can't really do anything to stop them. If you could come up with a way to do so that wouldn't infringe on the current abilities of forum members, then I might agree with you, on a practical level, at least. But as of yet, no one has managed to do that. And, as Kaboom says, this is an extremely rare issue. Why go to extremes to limit something that rarely ever happens if going to such extremes inconveniences people who don't even consider doing that?

[Zephyr]

I think it's a matter of what you value more as a member:

Older contributions being able to be looked back on with 100% certainty, or current posting abilities having more flexibility and ease.

[Herms]

I don't know Mike's exact thoughts on the matter and can't speak for him, but personally since he spends plenty of money, time, and effort maintaining the forums so that everyone can use it for free, in principle I see nothing wrong with the idea that once people post things up here they're not necessarily free to take them down again. Ultimately this place is just his treehouse that he allows everyone else to play in.

In practical terms though, while I'm sympathetic to the problems ShadowDude112 brings up, I think Kamiccolo9 makes good points that there's probably no foolproof way to prevent Fox666-style nonsense without also interfering with more routine editing. Mike would certainly be within his rights to prevent all editing of posts after a certain amount of time, and/or require people to request to edit their old posts, but measures like that would just end up being a huge hassle for everyone. If nothing else, typos would skyrocket.

And of course, I'm also someone highly prone to going back and editing my old posts, either to update them, correct them, or just because I didn't think I phrased them right the first time around. And while I am a mod, this is also something I did long before becoming a mod, so I'd personally feel uncomfortable with new rules preventing non-mods from doing stuff like that.

[MarcFBR]

Then the solution is rather simple.

Edit history that staff can restore if necessary.

If a member tries to burn the bridge, their forum access is removed, and the staff uses the post edit history to put things back.

No idea if phpbb has it by default. I know it's a default function on vb, but not sure about phpbb, but I have to imagine there is a plugin...

Has no effect on people editing posts as they wish, but if it comes down to it, staff can put a post back how it was at a prior point.

[TheDevilsCorpse]

That would work just fine for me.