Editing / Deleting Posts

[Violet]

---

As part of our commitment to making the forums as stable as possible, we have removed the ability for users to delete their own posts, and editing posts will only last for 20 minutes after you submit them.

Before you all complain, please be aware that this does not mean that posts can't be deleted or edited in any way. If you have a valid reason for deleting a post, or need to edit it after the 20 minute limit, then you can still contact a member of staff who can perform the action for you.

The reason we have brought this in is two-fold. Firstly, it is standard practice to limit the amount a user can edit their posts on practically all discussion forums on the internet. This is to prevent people from trying to retract what they said in order to "escape" from a debate (e.g. someone editing out a remark and claiming they never said it). Secondly, it makes the forums far more stable since we don't have people deleting posts that are important in discussions, and it should make people think more about what they are posting before they do so.

As I said before, if you have a valid reason for needing to delete a post, let a member of staff know and we can discuss it. Likewise, if you realise you made an error and your 20 minutes of editing time are up, let the staff know and we can correct it for you.

However, please try to use the "preview" button a bit more when creating new threads and posts in the future. It will show you how your post will look before you submit it, and so you can proof read it, spot and correct errors, or scrap it entirely. The staff are willing to correct the odd error here and there, but we don't want to be having to correct the same errors by the same people time and time again.

Most of the errors the staff have to correct are with BB Code, so if you have the time, please read the BB Code Guide which tells you how to use various codes on the forums.

-Tiberius

---

I have to delete my own posts due to prematurely posting (usually by accident, sometimes by having a last moment thought of a way something can be interpreted which I need to immediately retract and redesign from the ground up, and it shouldn't be sitting on the forum for any length of time at all)

And when it comes to editing, sometimes I'll come back to a thread about an hour after posting it, see some ridiculous mistake (a sentence is chopped in half, a spelling mistake on par with 'bestiality'), and fix it on the spot. It would be annoying to have a mod comment on the bottom of a good 10% of my posts (I'm sure I do this at least that often when I enter into serious discussions). It's just a pain in the ass all around... I'd have to tell some other person to go fix it instead of fixing it myself. (Edit: Only I've been careful to make it so I don't need to add anythi-wait. Oh. i just did it) (Edit2: Twice, smilies don't belong in this serious a criticism... would make it lose credence, you see) (would-be-edit3, but I caught the GSP before I clicked saved changes) (Would-be-Edit4: didn't finish the sentence) (Have I made this point yet?) (edit5: Code error)

I only preview long posts, and those mostly to make sure I got the [ brackets] [ /brackets ] right. I've probably made some terrible mistake in this post by now that I'd normally see somewhere between right after posting and after returning to this thread after sixteen others... and under this new rule I wouldn't be able to fix it without hassle, and hassle's just bad no matter what.

This rule also doesn't apply at all to a number of members (me, in example). I've never deleted a post to escape an argument, and I wouldn't ever delete a post to escape an argument I'm already in (though I have when I decided to get in on an argument and as I post realize I don't want to... if it's down for 5 seconds it stays down, for better or worse) ... and what is the point of winning an argument if I'm wrong and know it?

I think far more apt would be to have this as a restriction for anyone under an arbitrary postcount, that way the 'faster' and more prevalent posters aren't unnecessarily punished for things they wouldn't do in the first place. This is, after all, mostly a problem with random trolls that pop in and start trying to cause mayhem by their 100th post, and usually far far far far far far sooner (1-5). The few instances when this isn't the case should be handled individually, and not as a massive rule that gets in the way of normal forum browsing.

TL: DR? Go back up and read it, slacker I think this rule is entirely misguided in what it's attempting to accomplish, and a needless hassle that doesn't need to be dealt with by the members who have to wait until a mod graces the forum to fix a sometimes vital mistake, and a hassle that the mods simply don't need to deal with.

---

edit: Sounded a bit shitty now I think about it, I just mean that I think it's unfair to take away privileges that are occasionally abused at the expense of everyone who doesn't abuse them.

We're not really taking away a privilege, as much as making an adjustment in the hopes that it will keep the forum cleaner. As Tiberius pointed out, you can still have mods edit for you.

NTS

One of the privileges of this forum, as I see it, is that those who have earned enough respect can do whatever they want to their posts (so long as it's within the few rules, ie porn)... and are as a general whole so because they don't do shit like deleting their own posts to win an argument (I mean seriously... who was that neurotic? Not even I am that crazy... and purple hair suits my personality for heaven's sake)

---

I just mean that I think it's unfair to take away privileges that are occasionally abused at the expense of everyone who doesn't abuse them.

Not many people delete their own posts, and if they do, it's usually for a bad reason. We are simply trying to make sure that the amount of deleted posts doesn't get to a ridiculous number. We want people to treat the forums with respect; putting effort into their posts and standing by them. It isn't a place where you can post random thoughts with the expectation of being able to remove them at any point down the line.

It would be a disrespect to the forum for some of the posts that pass through my first judgement of "this is an acceptable response" to not be immediately deleted. It is exactly that I respect the forum and many of it's members that I tone down the outrageousness of some posts. My ability to delete posts works perfectly with my thinking process (I lay something out (post), retract it when I realize it could be so much better or shouldn't have been said in the first place (delete), lay it out in different wording or as a different idea (repost), see that there are improvements to be made and add these (edit), and later come back and see that a word is misspelt pointlessly (edit 2 hours and sometimes years later)).

Other forums, with rules like the suggested one, would have me on occasion post things that are offensive even to myself when I think about it in a different way. And then I wouldn't be able to delete that post on my own... and then a mod has to look at it and might not even delete it for all I know. It could even be that on whatever-forum I broke a rule with the post and they decide that warning/banning me is a fine option on top of that.

I trust you guys for the most part... but rules like these don't do anything positive to trust of anyone (not mods of the posters they might begin to resent after a while, not the posters who might worry about what the mods might do)

Likewise, most of the editing done to posts takes place well within the 20 minute limit. Most people edit mistakes they spot immediately when they look over the post they just submitted. If 20 minutes causes too many problems, then we can always increase it to something more useful.

We're willing to be flexible, as long as users are willing to be respectful.

It can only create agitation and drama in whoever it affects that isn't onlevel with a troll, who it might also create agitation and drama in, but we don't give a left ankle about troll's feelings.

I do agree that most of the time the editing is done within 20 minutes... but I know that sometimes I come back even years later and fix something (obviously with an editnote after so long)... so it's not like any time limit would catch all of the edits people perform.

Note: i certainly wouldn't mind if edits were tracked or something so that we know what was changed... but that just sounds trivial for the most part.

---

It's your world, do as you see fit.

All changes are going to create a wave of whiners. They'll get over it.

As the status quo being upset slowly and acidly dissolves every pillar built and the bridge collapses... but yeah: I guess we can adapt wings magically

---

But is the change even required? Maybe there is some incident I didn't notice that's the reason for this, but otherwise I can't see the point.

I too am very interested in what spurred this idea onto the table. All the forums I know of with time limits on editing have people complaining about it, constantly. And that's without even the mods being swamped by the additional idea of more random work a user can do themselves.