or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wtf!!!!!!

post #1 of 99
Thread Starter 
I have two WTFs!!!!!!

1. WTF!!!!! is w/ the time limit on editing. Muy lame-o.

2. WTF!!!!! is with all this post moving. Someone is gonna be nominated poster child of the local OCD club.

That is all.
post #2 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by irul&ublo
I have two WTFs!!!!!!

1. WTF!!!!! is w/ the time limit on editing. Muy lame-o.

2. WTF!!!!! is with all this post moving. Someone is gonna be nominated poster child of the local OCD club.

That is all.
The edit limit was set in place because posts were being edited after the thread discussions made progress including the content of the original posts. This caused a lack of continuity to many threads.
If you feel a need to edit after the time period, don't hesitat to contact a moderator. Most moderators are willing to help out.

Moving threads is something that happens when a new forum is created. There was a demand for a race forum, so threads that have content pertaining to racing are being moved to that forum.

Hope this helps.
TC
post #3 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by irul&ublo

1. WTF!!!!! is w/ the time limit on editing. Muy lame-o.
I agree, this sucks the big raw one.
post #4 of 99
It's one hour now.
post #5 of 99
I liked it when it was a week or so.
post #6 of 99
I think an hour is fine, twelve hours would be better. But a week is ridiculous. How about you can edit it until someone has responded to it?
post #7 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict
I agree, this sucks the big raw one.
Me too.
post #8 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky
I think an hour is fine, twelve hours would be better. But a week is ridiculous. How about you can edit it until someone has responded to it?
Personally, I don't like that control over my content has been limited in such a manner, and I don't like the reason given for doing so. If someone wants to change what they wrote, they shouldn't need to ask a moderator for permission.

As for allowing a week for editing being "ridiculous", how so? That's how long it used to be until a number of changes to the format of the site were enacted. I've tried the changes out and think that some of them (including this ridgid control of time for editing) suck.

Also included in changes that suck, is the way that threads disappear from sight on the "new posts" list once they'd been viewed, until another post is made in that thread. I find this annoying, it was much better when viewed threads were visable but not in bold font.

Why so strident in your opposition to the preference for control being in the hands of the individual contributors rather than the moderators? I support this site, and will make my preferences known.
post #9 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky
I think an hour is fine, twelve hours would be better. But a week is ridiculous. How about you can edit it until someone has responded to it?
I went to edit in an addendum, which corrected something I posted [that's right folks, I made a mistake; mark it down, doesn't happen often] and I couldn't. That blows.
post #10 of 99
Today, 04:31 PM
BillA
Mod Squad


It's one hour now.
Last edited by BillA : Today at 06:02 PM.




(This is a classic post. Edited 1:31 after orignal post, explaining tha the edit limit is one hour.)
post #11 of 99
The reason the management changed the time limit was simple. A poster was changing his/her previous posts and then saying, "I never posted that. Show me where I posted that." So to stop this type of sniping it was decided to reduce the time allowed to modify a post. It also really screwed up the continuity of the threads. At one time we had one person get hacked off and he/she went through and deleted all his/her posts.

As far being able to revise until someone else posts, I don't the the software is set up to do that. We need someone familar with the program to answer that.

It was considered that an hour was an appropriate time limit. There are some sites that the limit is set at 20 minutes.
post #12 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Square
It was considered that an hour was an appropriate time limit. There are some sites that the limit is set at 20 minutes.
Your consideration resulted in a flawed conclusion.


Edit (w/in an hour)...and what difference does it make what other sites do? If the other sites all jumped off a bridge, does that mean this site should?
post #13 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz
Today, 04:31 PM
BillA
Mod Squad
It's one hour now.
Last edited by BillA : Today at 06:02 PM.




(This is a classic post. Edited 1:31 after orignal post, explaining tha the edit limit is one hour.)
Classic catch!
post #14 of 99
I think you should read what you are posting before you post it, then again immediately after you post it. If you're fine with it then, you should stand by it. I understand totally the problem the moderators were having with people changing the content (not some misspelling) of their posts and the whole thread becoming totally confusing. What possible reason would you need to come back a week later to change a post? Especially since the moderators are willing to help you out, say, with a no longer working link or something.
post #15 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky
I think you should read what you are posting before you post it, then again immediately after you post it. If you're fine with it then, you should stand by it. I understand totally the problem the moderators were having with people changing the content (not some misspelling) of their posts and the whole thread becoming totally confusing. What possible reason would you need to come back a week later to change a post? Especially since the moderators are willing to help you out, say, with a no longer working link or something.
Well on one occasion I was selling a pair of skis, and after they didn't sell, I thought I'd like to lower the price a bit, but since when people are ski shopping, they are much less likely to read beyond the first post, I edited the actual AD which eliminated any questions as to what the actual price was.

The only reason it was done was to prevent people doing hit and run disparaging remarks, and using eidting to aid them in denying that they'd said what they said. I have never done that, but I have thought to change something I felt differently about later, after I'd cooled down.

The truth is, that once someone becomes emotionally escalated, it takes at least ninety minutes for the escalated state to subside. So, this one hour rule is an unrealistically short amount of time for one to self moderate based on human emotional biochemical reality. It is more geared (though perhaps not consciously so) to catching people in their words than allowing people to practice responsible self governance.

The continuity argument is meaningless to me. It seems like it only would come to bear if someone uninvolved in a dispute was seeking to insinuate themselves into the midst of it. If it doesn't make sense due to changes, perhaps one could deduce that it was not a place they needed to put their attention, and say to themselves, "Hmmm, I must have missed something, oh well."
post #16 of 99
We have the quote function. If its so important to preserve the content of a post you disagree with, then use it. I think there are more advantages to editing than disadvantages. The key offender to changing posts has been timed out for a month now, so like Irul says, WTF!

Maybe a sticky that it is common courtesy to leave a note when you edit a post. I frequently try to improve the clarity in a post. It may sometimes change the meaning to something I meant to say. I have rarely seen any conflicts over this, except for a while in the instruction forum where people were getting way to anal over details anyway.
post #17 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
people were getting way to anal over details anyway.
That's "way too anal over details..."
post #18 of 99
Bring back editing! Can we still delete them? I got my ass in a flap here one time over something I posted and it really helped that I was able to delete them as soon as the tahi hit the kepas angin (as they say in Indonesia)
post #19 of 99
I don't think I'll be posting as much now that editing is so difficult.

I edit more for grammatical and spelling errors, but because some idiot abused the system, we all have to pay by losing our best tools? Does Epic really want to be so ingrained in the SYSTEM that it loses its flavor?

This is one medium where it is POSSIBLE to change your writings. You can't do that with a book, a magazine, speech, recorded song, video.......but an internet forum is dynamic. Just because you have a moderating team doesn't mean you have to use them for every little thing.

Allow it to stay dynamic, and allow editing. At least give it a full 24 hours. Some of us post late at night, and things look clearer in the morning after we've sobered up.
post #20 of 99
Bit of history.

The old software (pre major crash) in May 2004, the system was setup to time out the edit function although I don't recall exactly what it was.. When the new software was configured, we forgot to reset this function until just recently.

The moderators and admin staff has always been willing to make edits when appropriate.

The continuity problem has always been there and this has always been the reason for a timeout in the editing function and deletion function. It was not just one person but many that abused the edit feature long after a reasonable time.

We can revisit the actual time frame but it will most likely not be too much longer.
post #21 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan
We can revisit the actual time frame but it will most likely not be too much longer.
Take a poll, however flawed, and then live with the democratic verdict.
post #22 of 99
I fully support the one hour time limit for editing. In the early days of EpicSki, there was no limit on editing. You could edit your posts forever, or delete them. You could even delete a whole thread if you were the person who started it! This freedom caused some very big problems. Individuals would, for whatever reason, disrupt entire discussions. The "show me where I said that" thing happened a lot. People would make inflammatory posts, then others would reply. Then the original poster would come back and edit out everything people had replied to. To someone coming in later and trying to follow the thread, it made no sense at all. Unrestricted editing led to some of the cheapest, most disruptive tactics I've ever seen.

The ability to delete a whole thread on a whim was particularly bad. Threads that many people had contributed to "vanished" simply because the original poster apparently didn't like the direction they took. People got furious, and rightly so!

At one point there was a very long thread--multiple pages--that debated these issues. Many, including myself, pleaded for restrictions on the editing function. Believe me, the problems we may have with the one hour limit are NOTHING compared to the problems we had without it!

Threads are records of discussions. That all changes when someone revises a post after it's been replied to.

Sure, there are times when I go back and reread a post and think, "I could clarify that a bit, if I could edit it." If that's all that ever happened with the edit function, it wouldn't be such problem. But it's not.

If the one hour limit makes people write their posts more carefully, and edit them before they hit "post reply," I don't see any negatives there! And as long as the moderators are willing to make appropriate changes after the limit expires, if they are important, then I think the benefits far, far outweigh the inconvenience of the editing time limit.

Please keep the limit!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #23 of 99
I agree with Bob. Once you post and others reply the post is set and should not be changed, An hour is fine it you need to fix an error or rethink it a bit.
Even so you can redefine yourself in another post.
post #24 of 99
I don't think you should be able to edit after the next post.

If you need to clarify or have second thoughts, then add another post for explanation.

If you have foolishly made rude, crude, or disparaging remarks in the heat of anger, then apoligize for being a fool. Better yet, don't post while you are angry. VA says that it takes him 90 minutes to come down from an anger-high. So, he knows that he shouldn't be posting for those 90 minutes. Others have a different cooling off period.
post #25 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVnRT
I don't think you should be able to edit after the next post.

If you need to clarify or have second thoughts, then add another post for explanation.

If you have foolishly made rude, crude, or disparaging remarks in the heat of anger, then apoligize for being a fool. Better yet, don't post while you are angry. VA says that it takes him 90 minutes to come down from an anger-high. So, he knows that he shouldn't be posting for those 90 minutes. Others have a different cooling off period.
I agree with this. If we all took a few minutes to think about what we are saying there will be a lot better communication.

I like to edit my posts for a few minutes after I post them, but that's all I need to do. I can always post a correction, or retraction later.

One hour seems like plenty, I could easily see less.
post #26 of 99
Nice to hear from you again Bob B.
post #27 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado
I fully support the one hour time limit for editing. In the early days of EpicSki, there was no limit on editing. You could edit your posts forever, or delete them. You could even delete a whole thread if you were the person who started it! This freedom caused some very big problems. Individuals would, for whatever reason, disrupt entire discussions. The "show me where I said that" thing happened a lot. People would make inflammatory posts, then others would reply. Then the original poster would come back and edit out everything people had replied to. To someone coming in later and trying to follow the thread, it made no sense at all. Unrestricted editing led to some of the cheapest, most disruptive tactics I've ever seen.
I fully support the principle of "engage brain before fingers" but this paragraph above is a classic definition of an Internet troll. Surely the way to deal with a troll is to suspend or ban him/her rather than taking the tool away?
post #28 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barnes/Colorado
, most disruptive tactics I've ever seen.

The ability to delete a whole thread on a whim was particularly bad. Threads that many people had contributed to "vanished" simply because the original poster apparently didn't like the direction they took. People got furious, and rightly so!

At one point there was a very long thread--multiple pages--that debated these issues. Many, including myself, pleaded for restrictions on the editing function. Believe me, the problems we may have with the one hour limit are NOTHING compared to the problems we had without it!
That 'very long thread' was called 'I'm a little miffed', and it's no longer in the archives. I've tried to find it several times, but for some reason, it's gone. Why is that?

Other threads remained viewable that are older than that thread. Why does this happen? Dchan, do you have an answer?:
post #29 of 99
it wasn't just trolls... LM did it to me a few times - totally changed her posts AFTER I'd replied....

I'm an adult with a brain though - so I LEARNT to QUOTE her when I replied...

If you are unsure about it quote the piece you are replying to....
then we could still have edits...
post #30 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by PVnRT
VA says that it takes him 90 minutes to come down from an anger-high. So, he knows that he shouldn't be posting for those 90 minutes. Others have a different cooling off period.
Well when you can't refute facts, make it personal I guess, at least that is what has been done here by PVnRT, a dismissal of the validity of what I wrote by suggesting I'm somehow lacking. Cheap shot.

My comments, about the time it takes for physiology to return to normal after emotional escalation, are the result of training and yearly recertification in conflict resolution. In my work with developmentally disabled and brain injured adults there is a high need for staff to be knoweledgeable in how humans react to stressful situations. We are trained so, because people (particularly staff) like to think that they have more control over their physiology than they do, and they can easily become re-escalated if they haven't allowed a sufficient settling period. It is equally true of unimpared people and disabled alike.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home