ignatios on 5/1/2006 at 14:59
Can we disallow edits after a certain amount of time (or maybe once a certain number of people have replied)? Situations like (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102937) this are utter bollocks and I'm wondering if there isn't some way to prevent it from happening without ruining the
zeitgeist around here.
I certainly think it's a good idea to give people a chance to change their minds about making a snide comment (which I do from time to time), or to clarify their positions if they make a clumsy post (which I tend to do all the time). People need to be able to edit their posts. However, it's incredibly rude when someone pulls out if the thread isn't going the way he/she wants it to. I think we can still allow edits without enabling people to completely fag things up by sending a post into oblivion.
Another approach would be for the mods to replace "that kind" of edited post with its original content (which I'm not even sure is technically feasible at this point), but that's just a bad idea. Can't we just prevent this kind of behaviour with a minimum of disruption?
Do we even want to?
This community is usually self-policing, but this is one area where I feel we really have no say. Faghats will be faghats, but do we have to accept them in this way?
Thoughts?
David on 5/1/2006 at 15:08
In the light of the faghattery I'm looking at writing a hack for vBulletin that would help in the regard.
The unfortutate thing with changing the edit threshold is what to set it to. After all, the OP in the thread mentioned was deleted a scant half-hour after it was made, which I feel is not sufficiently long enough.
One of the features under consideration by Jellsoft for vBulletin is including the history of posts, so a prior version can be restored.
So in conclusion someone will have to dig the OP out of their cache and I'll restore it ;)
SubJeff on 5/1/2006 at 15:17
I think after a certain number of replies and/or time (in case 10 people post in the 2 minutes after you) the posts could be locked.
The only issue with this is that some threads have a constantly updated initial post, like informal FAQs for tweaks, FMs, etc.
Eshaktaar on 5/1/2006 at 16:03
I wouldn't change anything, as those examples of faghattery are rare incidents and damage the posters' reputation more than anything else. Restricting everyone's editing abilities because of a few individuals feels too much like a collective punishment to me.
In extreme cases of confusion moderators/administrators could have the option to unearth the previous versions of the posts and repost them.
Turtle on 5/1/2006 at 16:45
I think the edited post should have a permalink to the original post, so you only see the edit unless you click to reveal the original content.
mopgoblin on 5/1/2006 at 23:18
I agree with Eshaktaar - preventing the occasional faghattery wouldn't balance out the annoyance of restricting all editing once so many people have replied or so much time has passed.
Links to all previous versions of a post could be a good idea, too. You could set it up so they're only automatically visible when an edit significantly reduces the length of a post (by more than 50%, say. That'd probably catch most of this delete-everything bullshit while leaving legitimate corrections and additions alone), and otherwise they'd have to be manually set visible by an admin/moderator.
Kyloe on 6/1/2006 at 08:22
Full-quote everytime is the obvious solution. ;)
Skronk on 6/1/2006 at 09:23
Leave it as is, it's more fun.
*runs*
Navyhacker006 on 8/1/2006 at 14:23
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
Links to all previous versions of a post could be a good idea, too.
Sort of like Wikipedia, I guess.
Quote:
You could set it up so they're only automatically visible when an edit significantly
reduces the length of a post (by more than 50%, say.
I agree. Except that, instead of the links being automatically visible, why not just make the edit fail?
Malygris on 9/1/2006 at 05:11
I'm not really seeing the necessity of making a change. Does this really happen often enough (and is it really annoying enough) to make it worth limiting the ability to edit posts?
