RE: Blind faith and evolution
August 10, 2013 at 6:02 pm
(This post was last modified: August 10, 2013 at 6:17 pm by Angrboda.)
Meh. You're both right, in a sense. Fr0d0 may very well have made the comment before you edited the post and while it was still "live" in his edit window. When he actually wrote the comment isn't reflected by the timestamp, but only when his comments were submitted to the forum software for posting. The problem is that replying to a post is a process that occurs stretched out over time, and the timestamp on the posts only represents a late stage in that process. It's not uncommon for this process to overlap with that of another person engaged in the same process, thus resulting in replies to material which has been expunged from a post after it was initially submitted. I think a more important question is whether or not Fr0d0 intentionally misrepresented the matter. I don't think so. Moreover, unless forbidding editing of posts after initial submission is to be made policy, a certain amount of good faith is necessary in accepting the report of someone who inadvertently replied to words that you removed while they were in the process of editing their reply. If you want to be allowed to edit your replies after being posted, it's only fair that you be charitable to those whose replies are "corrupted" by your doing so.
(For what it's worth, my editing process can take a long time, and I rarely double check whether or not the post has been edited in the meantime. Do you? It would be nice if the software would warn you of the event, but I think a bit of common courtesy can solve the problem just as ably.)
(ETA: There's also the question of whether editing a post counts with regard to moderation, as it was posted, and can remain up for two hours before the offending remark being expunged. Not speaking of any intent here, but a while back, in reply to a post of mine, a member posted a full page graphic of an obscene hand gesture. A few minutes later, he thought better of it, and edited it out of his post. Granted, it was not a rule violation itself, but regardless, I would hold that person responsible both for the initial content as well as the edited content. A window of grace is certainly warranted, but because you can't unring that bell, it seems rather inappropriate to fault someone for responding to the initial sound of the bell.)