or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Explain this one

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
At the bottom of each page, there is a message (disclaimer) that reads "All postings are the sole property of person posting, not episki's or it's administrators." If this is true, how can epicski justify a one hour time limit on editing or deleting a person's posts?

I know of the reasons given when this issue was raised previously, and also that administrator/moderators can remove or edit these on a member's/supporter's request, but if these posts ARE the sole property of the person who posts them, why should we need to go through a moderator to have access to control over them?

I'm not trying to raise a rucus really, I'd just like a logical explanation. I believe I've made my opinion abundantly clear on the subject previously, so I won't restate it.
post #2 of 34
You have just raised a conundrum that we have been working on for a while. This thread may force the issue and a decision, although we've been trying to weigh a number of aspects of this issue and not rush to the conclusion. Please give us some time to get back to you on it?

Thanks...
post #3 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post
You have just raised a conundrum that we have been working on for a while. This thread may force the issue and a decision, although we've been trying to weigh a number of aspects of this issue and not rush to the conclusion. Please give us some time to get back to you on it?

Thanks...
I think I understand why the disclaimer exists, and my opinion has been expressed previously. I'm in no hurry. As long as it is addressed and a consistant policy is adopted, I won't be pressing the issue.
post #4 of 34
The main reason I see is to maintain the flow of a thread. On another forum, two users were having a fairly heated discussion, then one of them went back and edited several of his posts, which then made it appear that the second poster was having a complete rant.

The flip side argument is to remove the edit facility completely - you post, and that's it - spelling mistakes, etc, remain. (which, I think, was how it used to be here)

I like it the way it is, but if it were to change, I'd prefer the edit facility was removed - then there can be no argument about what was, or was not said.

Can someone give an argument for leaving the edit facility with no limit on it?
post #5 of 34
As to the disclaimer, it just needs to be re-written to something about how the posts "express the opionions of the person posting and not of EpicSki or it's administrators." Like what they say on talk radio.

They do become the "property" of EpicSki, but EpicSki is not "responsible for the opinions stated." Need a lawyer to get this to be safe enough to protect the site against potential lawsuits for threatening or otherwise illegal posts, which of course is the purpose of the disclaimer.
post #6 of 34
I believe the purpose is to mantain the integrity of the conversation and I support this. Just because you can't remove them, doesn't mean you don't own them. That ownership refers to the copyright. By posting the material you've composed on EpicSki, you are still the copyright holder. EpicSki can't repurpose your posts for any other purpose without your permission. But in posting, you've aslo assigned, or licensed if you will, EpicSki's use of those words on this site. Ownership is important. If a journalist, for example, wants to quote something you've said, they need your permission, not EpicSki's. Yes, the other half of the equation is that you are also responsible for what you write. Perhaps how ownership relates to copyright could be more clearly expressed in the T's & C's.

Personally, I think the policy is just fine but perhaps it's underpinnings could be expressed more clearly.
post #7 of 34
I think you've hit on it, jstraw. But, the question still remains: what about a moderator edit when a poster refuses to edit? Is our only option to delete the post, or can we edit a word or three to maintain the integrity of a thread?

I think that the ownership language can be improved, and we're taking a more focused look at this now, since it's come up here. We've been discussing it for a while, but hadn't come to a conclusion, yet. Thanks for giving us the time to come to a reasonable (and legal--ugh) conclusion.
post #8 of 34
I think one of the questions here is this: is the mod squad a group of moderators, or editors (in the journalistic sense).
post #9 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by icanseeformiles(andmiles) View Post
I think one of the questions here is this: is the mod squad a group of moderators, or editors (in the journalistic sense).
That is definitely one of the questions, the answer to which has far-reaching implications that may not be obvious at first blush.
post #10 of 34
I'm very familiar with those far-reaching implications and sometimes when I see EpicSki acting editorially, I wonder if others have thought about the liability you assume when you take on editorial responsibility.

In answer to your "what about moderators editing posts question." A non-editoral process would involve killing the post with an explanation as to how it violated the T's&C's. The explanation would give the poster enough information to then go back and post a non-violating replacement.

More cumbersome, but also "non-editorial" would be notification of the violation, the temporary removal (soft-delete) pending the submision to the moderators of a non-violating edit of the original post, produced by the author, and the moderator placing the author's edit in place. If the author is unresponsive to the notification, the soft-delete can become a hard-delete.
post #11 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
More cumbersome, but also "non-editorial" would be notification of the violation, the temporary removal (soft-delete) pending the submision to the moderators of a non-violating edit of the original post, produced by the author, and the moderator placing the author's edit in place. If the author is unresponsive to the notification, the soft-delete can become a hard-delete.
This sounds like a reasonable proposal. Editing the wording of a person's posts should NOT even be considered a viable option IMO.

I raised the question because the wording of the disclaimer is inconsistant in the way I described. If it read more along the lines which SMJ suggested, I'd feel quite comfortable with the policy on editing currently in place.
post #12 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
I'm very familiar with those far-reaching implications and sometimes when I see EpicSki acting editorially, I wonder if others have thought about the liability you assume when you take on editorial responsibility.

In answer to your "what about moderators editing posts question." A non-editoral process would involve killing the post with an explanation as to how it violated the T's&C's. The explanation would give the poster enough information to then go back and post a non-violating replacement.

More cumbersome, but also "non-editorial" would be notification of the violation, the temporary removal (soft-delete) pending the submision to the moderators of a non-violating edit of the original post, produced by the author, and the moderator placing the author's edit in place. If the author is unresponsive to the notification, the soft-delete can become a hard-delete.
This is generally one side of the possible solutions. Only you said it better than I could! Thanks!
post #13 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post

I like it the way it is, but if it were to change, I'd prefer the edit facility was removed - then there can be no argument about what was, or was not said.

Can someone give an argument for leaving the edit facility with no limit on it?
Yes, when replying simply quote the post being replied to or the pertinent portions of that post and then you are protected from someone maliciously changing their post to make it seem like you are replying with a rant about nothing.

The only problem I have seen with that is someone who quoted me and then changed what I had posted when they quoted it which till that point hadn't even occured to me. Doing that is operating at an extremely low level and shouldn't be tolerated.

I like the infinite edit as I often will look back and realize I have left a word out, mis spelled, used the wrong word... (you no?) and that sort of thing. My brain and fingers just become disconnected at times.
post #14 of 34
hadn't thought of this aspect. I often quote a portion of someone else. for instance, only a few lines or a paragraph or two will be germane to the point I'm making. I always use ellipsis to indicate missing parts of the quote.

In addition, if one is changing a quote, it is a simple matter to look earlier in the thread to see the actual quote. I think, to a certain degree, all readers have to approach an online forum with a certain sense of caveat emptor.

I think most people here use quotes to give a context to their comments.

edit: as far a eliminating edits, I just had to change a typo. I probably wouldn't post (as opposed as to lurking) as much without that feature.
post #15 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by icanseeformiles(andmiles) View Post
edit: as far a eliminating edits, I just had to change a typo. I probably wouldn't post (as opposed as to lurking) as much without that feature.
That's why you have an hour to edit. Typos...reconsidering a remark, etc.

I'm pretty sure that if a violation of the T's&C's appears in a quote, the quote's going to need attention too.
post #16 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
I'm pretty sure that if a violation of the T's&C's appears in a quote, the quote's going to need attention too.
Yep. We've done that a few times...
post #17 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
At the bottom of each page, there is a message (disclaimer) that reads "All postings are the sole property of person posting, not episki's or it's administrators." If this is true, how can epicski justify a one hour time limit on editing or deleting a person's posts?

I know of the reasons given when this issue was raised previously, and also that administrator/moderators can remove or edit these on a member's/supporter's request, but if these posts ARE the sole property of the person who posts them, why should we need to go through a moderator to have access to control over them?

I'm not trying to raise a rucus really, I'd just like a logical explanation. I believe I've made my opinion abundantly clear on the subject previously, so I won't restate it.
It's like having a published article, story or book. It's your's, but you can't change it once you publish it, though you might want to put out a second edition.
post #18 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
It's like having a published article, story or book. It's your's, but you can't change it once you publish it, though you might want to put out a second edition.
Perfect
post #19 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post
The main reason I see is to maintain the flow of a thread.

Can someone give an argument for leaving the edit facility with no limit on it?
Nope.
I think how it is leaves time for errors and does not alter the thread flow very much.
I see this as a problem in other forums where people delete their posts after many have responded to it and the only way to control it is for the responders to quote it for posterity and a sense of thread continuity. So it pretty much backs up you and Epics current line of thought on this.

Maybe it is the disclaimer you need to reword?
post #20 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by icanseeformiles(andmiles) View Post
In addition, if one is changing a quote, it is a simple matter to look earlier in the thread to see the actual quote. I think, to a certain degree, all readers have to approach an online forum with a certain sense of caveat emptor.

This to me is a circular argument!
On one side, you want the ability to change your original message, on the other you say that if someone quotes it in a reply, but changes the quote, then all you have to do is look back up to the original... the question then is: Which one IS the original, and which is the modified one?
post #21 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
Editing the wording of a person's posts should NOT even be considered a viable option IMO.
In my opinion, it needs to be an option (not the first choice, but an option none the less). To rule it out entirely is dangerous.

E.g. If a poster starts a thread, and in it includes something illegal, but the rest of their post is valid, yet the poster refuses to edit. Should that post be deleted, and thus the thread be lost, or should it be edited to remove the illegal content?


Some will say this is limiting freedom, but in my book, freedom has to be limited to be possessed, and as long as people have the opportunity to act irresponsibly, then there must be some constraints in place to maintain civility.
post #22 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post
In my opinion, it needs to be an option (not the first choice, but an option none the less). To rule it out entirely is dangerous.

E.g. If a poster starts a thread, and in it includes something illegal, but the rest of their post is valid, yet the poster refuses to edit. Should that post be deleted, and thus the thread be lost, or should it be edited to remove the illegal content?


Some will say this is limiting freedom, but in my book, freedom has to be limited to be possessed, and as long as people have the opportunity to act irresponsibly, then there must be some constraints in place to maintain civility.
Let me reword the thought you responded to, editing as in changing the any words of the text to other words. I can see asterisking legally dangerous text if the rest of the post is of some great importance, but the hypothetical situation where this would be the case eludes me.

In such a case as you describe, I think scrubbing the thread would be the best course of action. Assuming something so volitile wouldn't go over looked for a long while. My .02
post #23 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post
E.g. If a poster starts a thread, and in it includes something illegal, but the rest of their post is valid, yet the poster refuses to edit. Should that post be deleted, and thus the thread be lost, or should it be edited to remove the illegal content?
I'd prefer something along the lines of my suggested soft-delete-pending-author-submitted-edit-or-hard-delete. If the author digs his or her heels in and refuses to participate in the process, to heck with it...then kill the post. This should happen early enough in most cases that the lost post won't undermine some long, significant thread.
post #24 of 34
I don't believe deleting a thread is a good course of action, particularly given the reaction on here when threads have been deleted, and we also need to consider the amount of time and effort required by moderators if new loops are put into the procedings.


If all posters could be guaranteed to be reasonable, mature and responsible in their posts, then there would be no need for moderators. Nor would there be any need for the edit facility, because people would be more careful with their words.
post #25 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post
I don't believe deleting a thread is a good course of action, particularly given the reaction on here when threads have been deleted, and we also need to consider the amount of time and effort required by moderators if new loops are put into the procedings.


If all posters could be guaranteed to be reasonable, mature and responsible in their posts, then there would be no need for moderators. Nor would there be any need for the edit facility, because people would be more careful with their words.

Fox, I was talking about deleting posts, not threads.
post #26 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
Fox, I was talking about deleting posts, not threads.
If the problem post is the first in a thread, the effect is the same.
post #27 of 34
The solution is simple -- keep the original post and all edits. Show the final editted post. A button that says "Show all submissions" would stop people from editting old posts that make others look like jerks -- one view of the original, and you would know who the jerk really is....

Then you can edit forever.
post #28 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
The solution is simple -- keep the original post and all edits. Show the final editted post. A button that says "Show all submissions" would stop people from editting old posts that make others look like jerks -- one view of the original, and you would know who the jerk really is....

Then you can edit forever.
Great idea!

...I don't think the software supports it...
post #29 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post
Great idea!

...I don't think the software supports it...
I don't think this would really address violating posts.
post #30 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
I don't think this would really address violating posts.
violating? You mean if a mod edits a post (which I believe happens extremely rarely) you see it as "violating"?

I find that a very negative position to come from.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home