# Should TUG modify "QUOTED" posts as user request?



## ecwinch (Apr 3, 2009)

Some of you may have picked up on a thread or threads, that imply that TUG has modified a "quoted" post at the behest of a TUG participant. I want to open a discussion on if this was appropriate.

First a disclaimer. I think the TUG moderators do a great, great job. They are volunteers and spend considerable amount of their time on the board. Do not make this thread about if moderators should have the right to censor posts, or close threads. That is not my intent.

Here are the facts as I know them. I do not profess to have all the facts, and if I have any facts in error please correct me.

On Apr.1, a member (Member A) of this board made a post regarding a developer allowing purchasers to rescind a purchase of a timeshare club past the rescission period. That member is the trustee at a resort that had intimate knowledge of the dealings with the developer. 

Another member (Member B), quoted this post in his response on that thread and in another thread that was monitored by the developer.

Shortly after the original post, the Member A modified his post. Removing the information that was detrimental to the developer. 

Member B's quoted post was on TUG for more than 24 hrs.  Then at the request of Member A, a TUG moderator modified the "quoted" portion of Member B's post - removing the information. 

This information clearly would have been helpful to TUG members who were in a similar situation and want to rescind past their rescission period.

To further complicate the situation, Member A is also a timeshare developer. This is the basis for his inside information that was removed.

*Should TUG have modified the quoted post?* Particularly to remove information that would benefit members in a similar position.

 We all know situations were moderators modify a post. For instance I remember when a reply from Marriott was removed from a post, because the e-mail contained a cavet that the information could not be redistributed without permission. 

 I think this is different. As Tombo said to me, *"the developers have lawyers, and the ARDA  - owners only have TUG"*.  

 Let me hear your thoughts.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 3, 2009)

the official point of view is that we never, ever edit or delete posts unless one of the following happens.

1. the original poster requests the edit or delete, and the reason for such an edit is deemed necessary.

2. there is a violation of the TUGBBS posting guidelines.

That said, I personally dont agree with someone posting something, and then coming back and deleting all of his/her posts after changing their mind, this is the whole reason for us implementing the no edit after 48 hours rule in the first place.

however two separate issues are asked here.

1. is it ok to edit the quote of someone else.  well...IMO its the same as the above rule...its not like you simply clicking the button "quote" somehow magically made you the owner of said text...so if its deemed necessary to delete the original post at the request of the poster, then deleting the quotes is no different.

This happens many times on a regular basis on tug (many times due to violations of the be courteous, or no advertising rule where another member has responded before a moderator has edited the original post)

and

2. restoring this post.  well regardless of the answer to this, in the particular way it was edited there is no "saved copy" unlike if we were to completely delete a post or thread.  so there is no way to recover it either way.


hopefully this helps.


----------



## Makai Guy (Apr 3, 2009)

ecwinch presented an excellent summary of what transpired.  Here's a bit of additional information.

The original poster contacted us and said that he had edited his original post at the advice of his attorney.  He asked that the two places where others had quoted original text be modified to reflect the changes he had made.  On the surface, this appeared to be a reasonable request.

The board rules as currently written allow the poster to edit his post for up to 48 hours after the initial posting, which he did, so the edit by the original poster was in compliance with board rules.  There was no rule covering the subsequent quoting of the pre-edited text, however.

Whether to honor such a request is obviously a judgment call.  In general, we try to accommodate reasonable requests from our users and in this case I complied, without realizing the significance of that change to the ensuing discussion.  In retrospect, this was probably not the best decision.


----------



## timeos2 (Apr 3, 2009)

*OK - it was wrong but life may go on*



Makai Guy said:


> Whether to honor such a request is obviously a judgment call.  In general, we try to accommodate reasonable requests from our users and in this case I complied, without realizing the significance of that change to the ensuing discussion.  In retrospect, this was probably not the best decision.



Live and learn but that edit shouldn't have occurred IMO.  History was changed and now the world may end as we know it!


----------



## UWSurfer (Apr 3, 2009)

Without knowing which thread or what the posts said, I have to say that TUG is not exactly the New York Times.  Its a message board.  If a member said something which could be considered liable, I for one want the option that I can correct/change/update something I posted to correct the situation.

It may not always serve the best interests of the community at large by knowing everything, but if the poster needs it changed to avoid legal action, by all means allow them change it.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Apr 3, 2009)

*Some Quotes Are Edited After The Fact To Clean Up Dirty Words, Etc.*

Sometimes an original entry contains vulgarities, etc., that are later flagged by someone & cleaned up by the Grand Pro. 

And sometimes another TUG-BBS participant sends in a follow-up entry quoting the material before it was cleaned up. 

In a case like that, it's a good idea for the Grand Pro to go back & clean up the quote as well. 

But -- _sheesh_ -- what a lot of trouble it is for the Grand Pro & TUG-BBS staff of assistants to have to keep on top of all that. 

Hats off to the whole bunch of moderators & administrators, in addition to a hearty salute for our TUG-BBS Grand Pro. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 3, 2009)

Being an admin/mod of a site this large and active is a thankless..and nearly impossible job to be perfect at.

I personally have ZERO beef with any action a mod/admin takes if they feel they are acting in the best interest of a member or the group as a whole.

What was done here was not done to hurt the group, nor was it malicious in any way.

Every single moderator has to make a judgement call when it comes to editing a post, ranging from upholding the posting guidelines (when in many cases this itself is a grey area), to making spelling corrections for users, to making appropriate edits as requested by the original poster after the 48 hour deadline has passed.

very very few situations have one true correct course of action, and as long as the volunteers here have the best interests of the site and its members in mind...then no action they take will be truly considered a "mistake" in my eyes.

however, we are all human.


----------



## Makai Guy (Apr 3, 2009)

timeos2 said:


> Live and learn but that edit shouldn't have occurred IMO.  History was changed and now the world may end as we know it!



Ah, but that is the world as we KNEW it may have changed.  The world as we KNOW it includes the effects of that prior change.


----------



## Conan (Apr 3, 2009)

Makai Guy said:


> The original poster contacted us and said that he had edited his original post at the advice of his attorney. He asked that the two places where others had quoted original text be modified to reflect the changes he had made. On the surface, this appeared to be a reasonable request.


 
That's good enough for me. We don't "own" the words we post here, especially not material we quote from others.

I'm satisfied with whatever choice a moderator makes when acting reasonably and in good faith.


----------



## Keitht (Apr 3, 2009)

In common with other posters in this thread, I'm very happy with the way the site is moderated.  As the request to edit the original post, and quotes from it, was on the basis of legal advice I certainly don't have a problem with the actions taken.  I haven't viewed the thread in question.
I think I, and many others, would have been far less happy had a post been edited just because its originator found some of the content to be embarrassing in hindsight, and therefore wanted it removing.


----------



## ecwinch (Apr 3, 2009)

TUGBrian said:


> the official point of view is that we never, ever edit or delete posts unless one of the following happens.
> 
> 1. the original poster requests the edit or delete, and the reason for such an edit is deemed necessary.
> 
> ...



Brian - Assuming that this is the extent of the guidelines that Moderators use, do you think it would be benefical to expand the "and the reason for such an edit is deemed necessary".

I absolutely understand that if a post violates posting guidelines, that post and any quotes from it would be edited. I just think that Moderators need a little more guidance then "is deemed necessary". 

In the absence of a posting violation, is just the user making the request the only criteria? 

For instance if I say something really stupid ("Obama is an alien from Pluto, sent to restore them as a planet"), and two months later when I  am running for public office, can I come back to TUG and have my comment removed? Is my request sufficient cause. 

I personally think the facts of this case are unique and hopefully would serve to hope us refine those guidelines.

I think we all would like the ability to "unring the bell". But I also think there should be some very specific guidelines including a escalation procedure for all edits of posts that do not violate posting guidelines. I am suggesting that greater care needs to be exercised in those cases, and it should be well understood.


----------



## ecwinch (Apr 3, 2009)

Keitht said:


> As the request to edit the original post, and quotes from it, was on the basis of legal advice I certainly don't have a problem with the actions taken.



I strongly disagree that this would be the criteria by itself. First off, we have no way to vet that claim. Secondly, the fact that legal advice is sought, implies that another party is harmed. Balancing the scales in favor of person that caused the injury is not TUG's responsibility.

If we want "my lawyer said" to be the criteria, I suggest that we ask that the legal counsel make a written request to TUG, outlining the reasons for the request and the harm involved. 

In this case, we have a request from a developer to remove information that is beneficial to the consumer. Removing this information only benefited that developer, and is detrimental to anyone who purchased a timeshare and is seeking to rescind. 

And we did not force the developer to come to TUG and post. He came freely in an attempt to prevent owners from organizing. In the course of arguing his case, he disclosed information that was beneficial to that ownership. I do not think we should assist him in covering that up.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 3, 2009)

its really up to the moderators discretion....however we always tend to error on the side of maintaining the stability and function of the thread topic itself.

ie someone cant start a thread, then come back months later and delete everything they posted leaving bits and pieces of replies thus making the thread useless.

There is simply no way to write a rule for every possible scenario, however generally before something like that is done the moderator posts it in the admin section for us to discuss and make a decision as a collective, or defer to me if necessary.

again it has to be requested by the original poster, as it comes up alot where we get requests from companies demanding we remove certain posts from the forums that perhaps are not flattering to their businesses.

however this is not the case here.


----------



## ecwinch (Apr 3, 2009)

Brian - 

I agree that you cannot have guidelines that address every situation. It sounds like you have a process in place. I do not know why I would think that you did not.

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Sou13 (Apr 3, 2009)

*I have to chime in here without reading all of the above*

I have to chime in here without reading all of the above because I am the TUG member who was victimized by inuendo, then had the post changed and my reply edited by Makai Guy and *I'm mad as H* and *mad at TUG*!

Thank you, Eric, for starting this discussion.  I have to get back to the Southcape Resort forum and see what further damage has been done to my credibility and intentions.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 3, 2009)

the only things edited were comments made by another party, and his comments that were quoted by others.

I have no idea why this would somehow undermine someone elses credibility, but thats neither here nor there.

This discussion has run its course, and far further than it should have.  should you have further comments about moderation, please submit them privately. (per the posting guidelines)


----------



## Sou13 (Apr 3, 2009)

*Not finished yet*

I'm new to TUG and not consulting with lawyers before posting here.  But if you were to review my posts you might decide that I'm opening up myself to legal action from what I've been posting on the Southcape Resort discussion.

Brian, I have sent you a message suggesting that some of my documents might be of interest to all interval owners who are being contacted by Outfield Marketing.  However I can no longer send private messages until I take time away from the Southcape Resort forum to decide which of my private messages can safely be deleted.  And now that I've experienced what can happen when a developer decides that what he posted might get him into trouble,  I don't feel safe deleting anything.

Have you noticed how much traffic that discussion has been generating?  Is that good for TUG?


----------



## tombo (Apr 3, 2009)

I as much as anyone probably started this thread without even writing a post on this thread. I was mad and I contacted Makai privatelly (as well as other tuggers). He stated why he did this and that after reading the posts further he was sorry that he did it. He seems like a great guy and I am sorry for any grief he caught because of this situation. He made a decision based on a request from a smooth talker that seemed innocent enough, but later realized that it might not have been the best move (being asked to edit a post for a developer sounds eerily similar to buying from a developer, you realize later that he talked you into a bad thing). Another tugger found the original quote in an archive and I reposted it. Now we have the original quote and the edited quote for all to read and discuss.

Makai, if that is the only thing you do this month that you wish you hadn't done, you will have a really good month.Thanks for explaining why you did it and thanks for listening to my reasons for concern.

Brian also discussed the situation with me and all agreed that it shouldn't have been done and probably won't ever happen again. For those who are curious it is on the Southscape thread and it is self explanatory. It happened, it was discussed, the deleted portions were reposted by me, and all is well that ends well.

Makai thanks for talking to me when I was hard to talk to.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 3, 2009)

there are many laws that protect "the little guy" from being sued by "the big guy" over things they post on public forums.

most noably the constitution and free speech.

secondly you can research SLAAP legislation in your state, which is written specifically to prevent a giant corp with tons of money from suing you knowing you simply cant afford to defend yourself.

that said, knowingly posting private documents, false information, lies, or priviledged/copywrited information can most certainly result in it being removed from public view.


posting your opinion, in a fair and public discussion of a specific topic...is in no way grounds for any sort of legal action against you.


----------



## LLW (Apr 4, 2009)

I just like to say how impressed I have been by the graciousness exhibited by everyone who has posted in this thread, especially the BBS administrators. Others have said it many times before, but I would like to thank them once again for a hard and thankless job done well on a continuous basis!


----------



## Htoo0 (Apr 4, 2009)

Hear, Hear! I think TUG does a great job and I appreciate how understanding and reasonable TUG members seem to be.


----------



## Sou13 (Apr 5, 2009)

*Apology*

I want to publicly apologize for going ballistic when I discovered that my quote had been edited.  If you read the edited quotes they don't make sense!


----------

