Posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2009, at 0:35:15
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by SLS on December 3, 2009, at 22:37:19
> You didn't reply to my example of changing "F*ck you" to "Bless you".
I'd appreciate that change, too. :-)
> I find it very upsetting that you refer to my distress at being upset about change, and tell me that change can be for the better. I feel [unheard]
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that your distress was *just* about change.
> > That would seem to preserve as much incivility to you as possible?
> It would preserve the reality. If someone is uncivil to me, that's the reality.
OK, I think I see now. That would seem to preserve as much uncivil reality as possible, but preserving as much reality as possible may be more important to some people (including you) than whether what's preserved is civil.
> You are responding to this as if you believe the only use will be people who read their post and say oops. I didn't intend my post to read quite that way, let me amend it before it hurts anyone. While I am asking you about people who will express anger and/or hostility by deliberate attacks that are later amended to pretend they never happened.
Since this is a support group, I think it's reasonable to assume that most posters don't intend to hurt and to trust their motivations for amending. But as a backup, deputies and I could check the copy of the original saved by the server to see if someone's denying something that did happen.
> An on board post that is posted and later revised is available to a large part of the Babble population before revision, depending on time involved. If the post later says something different, the reality of what is on Babble is changed. Those who saw one version have one version of reality. Those who saw the second version have a second version of reality. Only those who saw both versions have the actual reality.
That's true, those who didn't see the first post could be said to have an incomplete version of reality. To some extent, they would need to try to accept not knowing the original message.
> What really flabbergasts me is that my proposal achieved what I'm guessing to be your goal, avoiding administrative consequences for incivility, while still preserving what I thought you counted dear.
Where did you get the idea that my goal was avoiding administrative consequences for incivility?
> I'm not clear if responding to the thread is sufficient or if responding to that particular post is necessary.
Responding to any post would be sufficient. Just the most recent post would be amendable.
> Who are your priority in this?
> What were the advantages to amending posts?
> - Scott
It would be a way to avoid, or at least lessen, hurt feelings. It would also give posters more control over what they post.