172 replies to this topic

[Nastian]

Gaias - that was very funny.

[Ghreyfain]

...
If someone acts like a fool, then I feel that a random passer-by should be able to come along, see how things transpired, and make their own judgments based on that.

I'm essentially a 'random passer-by', and it seems to me that this jcompton has been trolling out a subforum to bait someone he doesn't get along with. Well done.

Had the posts still been around, you would've been able to make a more informed judgment.

JCompton, you're either a stubbon bastard or a filthy bastard.
...
Mine is meant to anger you, but I'm sure you're big enough to rise above it.

See, for violating the posting guidelines here at SHS, I'm sure your post will be deleted. If they let you be more open here, you'd be free to make or break your reputation through your own words. See the first sentence above, which you quoted.

Edit: Grammar.

Edited by Ghreyfain, 27 September 2005 - 02:19 PM.

[Shed]

Tris, there's no need to be personally insulting in your post; as such, I have edited it.

As a matter of fact, we don't delete posts on a whim, but I'd ask you to stick to the boad guidelines in future posts.

[Gabrielle]

Tris, there's no need to be personally insulting in your post; as such, I have edited it.

As a matter of fact, we don't delete posts on a whim, but I'd ask you to stick to the boad guidelines in future posts.

Editing another person's post is ok? You might as well delete it if you don't want the truth of what someone said to be known, regardless if you think it's inflammatory or not.

Another thing about editing someone else's post is who is to say that the person who did the "editing" didn't put the negative remarks in it? Or maybe make the post look favorable to you like instead so-so sucks, so-so is cool?

[Shed]

Editing another person's post is ok? You might as well delete it if you don't want the truth of what someone said to be known, regardless if you think it's inflammatory or not.

I'm not attempting to "conceal the truth".

I don't like deleting posts whimsically.

Another thing about editing someone else's post is who is to say that the person who did the "editing" didn't put the negative remarks in it? Or maybe make the post look favorable to you like instead so-so sucks, so-so is cool?

Who indeed? An interesting philosophical question. Perhaps you'll take my word for it .

[Gabrielle]

I'm not attempting to "conceal the truth".

I don't like deleting posts whimsically.

So you admit to deleting posts? Excellent.

Who indeed? An interesting philosophical question. Perhaps you'll take my word for it

You'll have to excuse me if I don't take the word of a troll.

[Plasmocat]

You make a few good points, Gabrielle. All things being equal, I agree that it's better not to edit other ppl's posts. I would be more inclined to delete the post or move it to a dead thread forum.

However ... there's always some shades of gray in that black & white. For example, considering the following hypothetical:

Say someone posts something that violates your agreement with your server, like adult topics that are unrestricted and available for children to see. But the snag is that the objectionable part of the post doesn't represent the entirety of the post. In fact the rest of the post is on topic and relatively harmless in terms of representing someone's opinion.

Now, say that the poster who wrote the material is halfway across the world from you and it could be 6 or 8 hours before that poster is awake or at home to read your attempts to contact him/her to request that s/he edit their own material. What if you had to consider that it might even be longer than that if you don't know whether that person checks the board every day (before I became a mod, I didn't check the board every day myself). What if you don't know whether the poster would respond to your request to edit themselves? What if you already had tried to contact the poster and even let a cpl of days pass only to get no response and you were at the point where you had to decide what action you were compelled to make?

Now, you could take the chance that no one would become offended by the remark and report it to your server. Or, you could completely remove the post and/or thread, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Or, you could edit a word or phrase and paragraph and leave a note of explanation for what you'd done.

I'm not going to say that any one of these options would be the best solution in every case. Situations are different and collective board personalities are different. What is said and how much bearing it has on the topic at hand and even the context of the topic at hand might have some bearing as to how important it may be to preserve or discard the post.

This is one of those situations in which the guidelines have to be interpreted by the person on the scene with the responsibility to consider consequences that might range outside the immediate irritation of the poster and readers who object to having their posts tampered with.

To be clear: I don't approve of anyone editing another's posts. I would tend to remove the entire thread before I would do that under most circumstances. I'd probably move the thread to a closed thread forum before I'd even delete a post, much less edit it.

But that's *my* judgement, and what I would do doesn't make what someone else would do unethical or unfair depending on their intention and depending on the situation. I'd be lying if I said I would *never* do something like that because there may be times when I know the author wouldn't mind or that I feel the overall content of the post in the context of the thread needed to remain even if one part of it had to necessarily be removed.

I can only hope that Tris doesn't take offense at having the post edited because my sense is that Shed was trying to be fair and was also looking for an option that didn't remove the entire post.

But in this case, he was damned in whatever action he did or didn't take.

If he'd left the post in tact, then it could be said that we weren't evenly applying our board guidelines.

If he removed the post, then he'd be a Draconian nemesis of free expresssion.

If he edited the objectionable parts, then he'd have his integrity called into question and would be accused of manipulating opinion in his own favor (This making the assumption that the person whose post was altered wouldn't immediately point out that their post was altered and object themselves.) ... or maybe accused of being another version of a Draconian nemesis of free expression.

I'm sure he thought of all of this before he acted, and took what he thought was the least objectionable action. But no matter what he did, he was going to tick somebody off. I don't envy him or the other admins or the mods of his forum for having to come across that problem and being forced to look like a jerk no matter what.

Shed, thanks for taking one for the team.

[Zyraen]

*watches*

[HERD]

To JasonCompton - there would'n be another Team BG,
"Times they a-changing"

[NiGHTMARE]

You'll have to excuse me if I don't take the word of a troll.

In that case, you may want to take a closer look at the content of your own two posts.

Edited by NiGHTMARE, 28 September 2005 - 05:24 AM.

[Seifer]

Tris, there's no need to be personally insulting in your post; as such, I have edited it.

As a matter of fact, we don't delete posts on a whim, but I'd ask you to stick to the boad guidelines in future posts.

Editing another person's post is ok? You might as well delete it if you don't want the truth of what someone said to be known, regardless if you think it's inflammatory or not.

Another thing about editing someone else's post is who is to say that the person who did the "editing" didn't put the negative remarks in it? Or maybe make the post look favorable to you like instead so-so sucks, so-so is cool?

A quick note on this. Only the admins (I think) can edit a post and leav eno mark. Everyone else has the "edited by xxx" dialog enforced.

Note from Sir K: Seifer is correct, even Global Moderators cannot edit a post without leaving evidence, as should be shown now at the bottom of this post.

Edited by Sir Kalthorine, 28 September 2005 - 04:41 AM.

[Zyraen]

In all fairness, I think there shouldn't be overt speculation on the contents of something that has been edited out. It's not as if the person who edited it is going to undo his Edit and go "There it is, the original post! Now you satisfied!?" And anyway, the unhappy one will still "Yeah, how do we KNOW that IS the original post?"

Proof aside, no harm being reasonable.

Meantime, I'm sure there are outlines drawn up in SHS for editing/deleting posts. While these outlines are not necessarily 100% identical from board to board, surely it isn't too much of an issue to edit/delete a post, assuming that it meets the criteria required for such action to be taken, since the proof on IF it meets the criteria is presumably, gone or suspect, after having undergone editing.

==========

Actually, I had not intended to post significantly on this thread after my third last post, but since I'm here I may as well answer a question unrelated to recent 6 or so posts, heh.

Plasmocat :
The only difference is that Hlidskiaf's 3rd point restated what you said in your post with different words. I guess that the miscommunication was that we couldn't understand why you would need your own phrasing to be rephrased after you not only had an administrator agree with you but when you had other staff members reinforcing that general prinicple with their individual reactions.

Since I had intended to withdraw from the discussion, there is the possibility that I was just being agreeable as it would be further than I would be willing to go. Whether or not this was a significant factor I will leave to others to deduce (as if any would care? just a n00b on the block ne, this Zyraen fellow? )

Hlidskiaf did not actually restate what I said, but he answered specifically that what I was calling for was (he felt) unnecessary, and backed his stand up with reasons that were fairly objective (I felt).

In reality, his reply was quite far from what I called for - it did NOT condemn deleting posts for no reasons other than that deleter hated the poster. Rather, he pointed out that if enough (this is a subjective term) ire had been provoked previously, then the act itself had to be considered with respect to this history of ill relations, rather than just being condemned on its own.

(As a parallel to those who cannot follow my interpretation of his words - Killing another human being is to be condemned, but if there were mitigating circumstances, such as for self-defence or in the case of war, then the offence would definitely be "relatively minor")

That is, I feel, an entirely understandable stand to adopt as Staff members, hence the "Concur" I posted. I do not know if this was the collective stand, since he did not actually say that it was, BUT given the posts of all the Staff who have posted in this thread, it certainly seems that it IS the collective stand. Therefore I felt there was no need for further queries to clarify if it was indeed the collective stand.

Edited by Zyraen, 28 September 2005 - 05:05 AM.

[Plasmocat]

Zyraen: Well, hence my use of the word "miscommunication." Because, speaking only for myself, what I was understanding you to ask for was evidently different than what you actually were trying to ask for. It looked like you were asking for 6 instead of a half dozen, if you see what I mean.

At least someone stepped in to answer what you intended to ask, even if the answer wasn't what you necessarily wanted to hear.

For my part we're cool. I hope you feel the same.

[Zyraen]

Never had any hard feelings about it. I'd like to think I know a reasonable stand when I see one, even though I may disagree with it (and in this case I don't). I like to think I like being reasonable more than I like butting into matters that don't concern me, especially since I wasn't the one who deleted posts or had my posts deleted.

BTW, Eavesdropping Bystander, I just tried to use the quote function ^^;;; I wanted to quote you, but it seems I have technical difficulties. Maybe my popup stopper, or something, I remember I could do quotes before this, just that multiple quotes were a real pain to put up. I'll put up proper quotes in future, if they involve one or two quotes only. For the sake of the children, of course.

[Gabrielle]

You'll have to excuse me if I don't take the word of a troll.

In that case, you may want to take a closer look at the content of your own two posts.

You're implying what? Spell it out don't hide what you mean to say.

[Gabrielle]

You make a few good points, Gabrielle.  All things being equal, I agree that it's better not to edit other ppl's posts.  I would be more inclined to delete the post or move it to a dead thread forum.

I don't agree with editing a persons post period, which is why I said something. Even one that is a personal attack on myself I don't edit. Let the world see this person for what they really are.

[NiGHTMARE]

You're implying what? Spell it out don't hide what you mean to say.

That for someone who dislikes trolls so much, you're acting suspiciously like one. I'm assuming you do trust your own word, right?

[SConrad]

Meantime, I'm sure there are outlines drawn up in SHS for editing/deleting posts.

Yes, there are. And according to them, Shed acted exactly just as he should have, and should be commended for it.

I don't agree with editing a persons post period, which is why I said something. Even one that is a personal attack on myself I don't edit. Let the world see this person for what they really are.

Moderating policy is different from forum to forum. If you don't like the notion that a moderator can edit your posts, keep in mind that nothing forces you to post here - or anywhere else.

I would like to think that what we do here is slightly (if not much) better. But that's just my opinion and I respect that other people might think that "No spaming" and "Get the fuck out of here" is better than our guidelines.