Posted by Nadezda on November 24, 2009, at 10:43:41
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 23, 2009, at 11:06:02
For me, the later erasure of a post that I'd read would raise confusion in my mind about whether I had read it-- or read it right. When I read something to which I have a strong emotional reaction, I may later question whether the person really said one or another thing that I remember as distressing. Referring to the original post assures that I can restore my sense of what I read-- and thus check my reaction ( to correct, change or confirm it).
I find this distinctly supportive of my sense of continuity and my ability to depend on either my perceptions, or on the record of what was written. This is the huge advantage, to me, of the non-editing protocol.
On the other hand, people can speak impulsively and then regret that they've posted their immediate reaction. So there's value in letting them revise, and giving them a chance to come to a more considered response.
These values are obviously in conflict and I suppose it's a question of which is more important. Or how to meet both needs of the community-- for a stable reality and a chance to be their best self, and to be protected from each other's--and their own-- momentary outbursts.
For me, 24 hours seems to much, mostly because it creates the time for many people to read the post, who aren't yet intimately connected to the conflict, but who may be drawn into the swirl of emotions--but who don't post. So the post could remain unanswered, even though many have read and reacted to it. This seems unhelpful, as it creates a confusion and contradictory experiences among potential responders-or even non-posting readers--about what was and wasn't said.
Maybe half an hour isn't long enough-- maybe an hour or even two would be more fair. However, I do think the cut-off should be well before twenty-four hours. That just gives too much opportunity for people, especially lurkers, to read the posts.
So I guess I think there could be some way of accommodating both needs, with revision within a deadline and/or response.
I'm not personally worried about bullying or gaslighting-- imo, anyone who's doing that could be identified and actions could be taken to protect everyone. And I also find myself believing that most, if not all, posters here really are struggling with many issues and, when hurtful things are said, people often don't do it with a bad heart, even if they're upset at the moment.
I also see that we don't really have any current deputies, and that this might permit babble to be self-sustaining, ie to function more smoothly with minimal moderation. So, perhaps it's a modus vivendi. Since people have said it would help them feel more safe, more in control, and less vulnerable to being banned, it again might prevent pbcs and blocks-- which, of course, have always been the greatest source of conflict here.
On one hand, this shouldn't be decided based on how one or two people personally feel about the process. A change of this magnitude requires consultation-- of the kind that was missing in the prior insertion of the twitter and facebook links. So bringing in the community-- whatever its potential for creating more uproar, which I think is substantial-- might be worth it in the long run.
On the other hand, if there is a lot of disagreement about how to proceed, it could cause further ruptures. Making important changes without letting people at least know in advance to prepare, or to challenge the direction we're taking, seems unwise. So maybe if you decide to make the change, you could present it for discussion and reflection while presenting it as something you do intend to do, as opposed to a mere suggestion.
One other important thing-- I do strongly stress that if you do make a change, it would be best to explain in greater detail than you have a habit of doing, why you're doing it, and the effects you hope to achieve. Perhaps a session on the chat one evening for interested parties to talk with you in person would be productive-- and would give people the sense that you're acting in their and babble's best interest, not arbitrarily imposing rules from above. It may seem impossible to meet the objections and satisfy everyone-- or most people-- and I can see how it might seem useless to try. So I'm not really sure how to proceed, except that I do think a more detailed explanation of some sort is really necessary.