Posted by Dinah on November 28, 2009, at 9:43:09
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2009, at 2:26:44
> Since this is a support group, I do think it's reasonable to assume that most posters don't intend to hurt and to trust their motivations for revising. But as a backup, deputies and I could access the copy of the original saved by the server (it would be available to us, but not to everyone) and see if false information was posted about it, which would be considered uncivil. (At the same time, it would also be considered uncivil for other posters to post anything that could lead the original poster to feel accused or put down.)
You yourself have said that we shouldn't feel too safe here. That was one of the "advantages" of the Twitter and Facebook options - to remind us.
So if I'm to understand you, no one would receive any admin action no matter what they posted as long as they revised it within twentyfour hours no matter how many people read the post.
Would it be frozen for editing if someone replied? It would then at least be a game of chicken, since posters would always run the risk of having the first person to read it reply.
If I understand correctly again, denying you wrote something would be uncivil. But since pointing out that someone said something would also be uncivil, that wouldn't really be an issue. No one would have to deny it.
If I quote the original post in my reply, including the incivility so that people would know what I was replying to, would that be uncivil?
How could a poster civilly point out that the original said something very different. Or offer to make the original available by email. It's not private communications. It was posted on the internet.
> That's true, those who didn't see the original would have an experience different from those who did. To some extent, those who didn't would need to try to accept not knowing something. OTOH, the more people who did see it, the easier it should be to find out, so maybe there's the possibility of *less* confusion, too?
So you're saying that there would be less confusion if more people knew the original reality. Yet you are also in favor of disappearing the original reality and replacing it with multiple realities? You think it would be good for babble's stability to have the haves and the have nots of information?
> I agree, and I'm trying to explain now. I'd be open to a chat, too, but people would have to be available at that particular time, and it wouldn't automatically be recorded like this thread.
Does this mean that this is a done deal, something you have already decided to do, and nothing we say will influence you to change course, or at least to compromise?
There are other problems that have cropped up elsewhere with editing, but there's no point even discussing them if this is something you are going to do, and we can like it or lump it.
Why do I feel like this is "next time"?