Blind faith and evolution

[Cyberman]

I don't give a flying fuck whether you thinl I am being melodramatic or not. The point I am taking issue with is this part:

You said : "Where do I say that Staff members are exempt from forum rules?"

I simply pointed out that you'd edited the post since I made that comment. Which you then confirmed as true.

No! Wrong, sir!

I make no secret that I edited my post and retracted the offending phrase. What I had initially said was stupid and wrong, and I immediately retracted it. For you to turn that honest mistake into accusations that I altered my words after you called me on them is incredibly dishonest of you.

But let's recap here. The answer to my question "Where did I say that Staff are exempt from the rules?" is "In a section of a post that was redacted immediately, or at most a few minutes, after submission and therefore no longer existed by the time you posted your reply."

If you want melodrama, and if you insist on pushing this as some great abuse of my position, try this on for size:

I, Stimbo, of my own free will and to save the Staff from any or further embarrassment, do here and now tender my resignation from the position of Moderator that was entrusted to me.

Happy now? You've got my head on a pike, just like you wanted.

I bid you good day, sir.

[fr0d0]

1. I'm afraid your post, which was submitted, was what I replied to.

2. You admirably withdrew the offending comment, but too late for me to see before submitting my post responding to it.

3. You maybe innocently, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, denied existence of the offending words.

4. I stated that I'd read the words and replied to them.

5. You then admitted the words were there initially.

6. I stated my problem with [3] above.

7. You throw an extended hissy fit claiming that you see no problem with [3]

[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.)

[bennyboy]

There's something about submitting a post, and then reading it, that makes it easier for me to view it through other posters' eyes, so to speak. I very often find mistakes, or regret certain turns of phrase, and refine a post-- even several times. Usually, I don't mind if someone quotes me, because the original is close enough to the polished version. But I've sometimes submitted flame-y posts out of frustration, and gone back a few minutes later to cover my tracks. It sucks when you get quoted saying something dumb before you can edit it, but that's just how it goes sometimes. In the end, you have to take responsibility for what gets submitted when you hit the "Post Reply" button.

I think a little bit of understanding can go a long way-- personally, if someone changed their post within 2 hours, I'd probably go back and edit out my response, as well. Why spend perhaps hours of your life fighting over something a guy already took back?

[Jackalope]

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. Albert Einstein

"The greatest thing about the internet is that I can falsify quotes and some people will still believe them".

- Abraham Lincoln

[Jackalope]

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.

That's a good point. Personally, were someone to post something actionable and then reconsider and edit the post, I would likely consider the matter closed absent any extenuating circumstances.

[Angrboda]

[The Reality Salesman01]

There's something about submitting a post, and then reading it, that makes it easier for me to view it through other posters' eyes, so to speak. I very often find mistakes, or regret certain turns of phrase, and refine a post-- even several times. Usually, I don't mind if someone quotes me, because the original is close enough to the polished version. But I've sometimes submitted flame-y posts out of frustration, and gone back a few minutes later to cover my tracks. It sucks when you get quoted saying something dumb before you can edit it, but that's just how it goes sometimes. In the end, you have to take responsibility for what gets submitted when you hit the "Post Reply" button.

I think a little bit of understanding can go a long way-- personally, if someone changed their post within 2 hours, I'd probably go back and edit out my response, as well. Why spend perhaps hours of your life fighting over something a guy already took back?

I do the same thing. The Author of a book is always harder on himself than an editor ever could be.

---

There's something about submitting a post, and then reading it, that makes it easier for me to view it through other posters' eyes, so to speak. I very often find mistakes, or regret certain turns of phrase, and refine a post-- even several times. Usually, I don't mind if someone quotes me, because the original is close enough to the polished version. But I've sometimes submitted flame-y posts out of frustration, and gone back a few minutes later to cover my tracks. It sucks when you get quoted saying something dumb before you can edit it, but that's just how it goes sometimes. In the end, you have to take responsibility for what gets submitted when you hit the "Post Reply" button.

I think a little bit of understanding can go a long way-- personally, if someone changed their post within 2 hours, I'd probably go back and edit out my response, as well. Why spend perhaps hours of your life fighting over something a guy already took back?

I do the same thing. The Author of a book is always harder on himself than an editor ever could be.

[bennyboy]

zomg wittiest meme ever!

[fr0d0]

Why spend perhaps hours of your life fighting over something a guy already took back?

I'm spending zero time fighting over the fact that he took it back, he kindly conceded that immediately. The point of injustice is that he took the piss using the misinformation and refuses to retract that.

I can't let him deny that without correcting him.

He kept adding insults based on this misinformation, all of which stands. This is dishonest. His wider credibility is spoilt by his actions, and his refusal to do the right thing further harms it. He must be confused because he's offering up his staff membership rather than apologise.

If he never mentions it again, neither will I. If he contradicts the truth again, then I'll confront that.