# Should editing of posts be restricted?



## Keitht (May 10, 2007)

With the current situation where a post can be edited at any time there is always the risk that long after posting, a member will go in and edit their message.  This can result in a total change to both the content and meaning of their post.  That post may already have been responded to, so the responses are also rendered meaningless.  An example of that is this post.  If you look through the topic you will see where others have included quotes from the initial post in their replies.  These show just how much the OP has removed, some weeks after posting.
On a number of other bulletin boards I use there is a limitation on the ability to edit.  On some there is a time limit and on others it is not possible to edit an entry after another reply has been entered.
Here we have the ability to preview posts so there shouldn't be any need, in most cases, to edit after the event.  Would it be possible to do something similar here and is there any support for such restrictions?


----------



## sfwilshire (May 10, 2007)

As a poor typist, I appreciate the ability to be able to edit after the fact, even after a response. Sometimes I reread something I've posted a day later and realize I was unclear or incomplete in what I said.

I would expect the instances of someone changing the whole meaning of their post long after the fact would be few, and even if they did, I guess the worst that could happen is a bit of confusion.

I could live with a 24 hour time limit or something like that. Heck, I could live with any restriction, but my poor typing and proofreading skills would probably be more obvious.

Sheila


----------



## Keitht (May 10, 2007)

I realise the instances of wholesale changes to a post such as I highlighted are comparatively few, but when they do happen it tends to be after a number of opposing posts have been made.
If typo's were noticed after the time limit for personal correction the mod for the board would be able to make them on the OP's behalf.  Again I think the number of occasions would be limited as people would be more inclined to preview before posting (I know I would  )


----------



## johnmfaeth (May 10, 2007)

It is clearly deception to alter your post in a way similar to the example. I feel this is very rare versus the typo crowd. I am "typing challanged" and really like the fact that I can return to a post which has the appearance of being typed by a ten year old.

No, I am not willing to waive my ability to edit so we are "protected" from posters who wish to deceive later on. Why should the majority pay for the sins of the minority. And I speculate that the minority will have little of interest/value to post anyway.

In the particular case, I think TUG moderators were involved in that an identical thread of the following creation date was zapped.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (May 10, 2007)

Keitht said:


> With the current situation where a post can be edited at any time there is always the risk that long after posting, a member will go in and edit their message.  This can result in a total change to both the content and meaning of their post.  That post may already have been responded to, so the responses are also rendered meaningless.  An example of that is this post.  If you look through the topic you will see where others have included quotes from the initial post in their replies.  These show just how much the OP has removed, some weeks after posting.
> On a number of other bulletin boards I use there is a limitation on the ability to edit.  On some there is a time limit and on others it is not possible to edit an entry after another reply has been entered.
> Here we have the ability to preview posts so there shouldn't be any need, in most cases, to edit after the event.  Would it be possible to do something similar here and is there any support for such restrictions?


I try to use the quote feature liberally when I respond, often for the reason you describe.  In addition, when I am responding to only a part of a post, I use the quote feature to indicate the specific part I am responding to.


----------



## "Roger" (May 10, 2007)

I put this in the "sometimes we are so worried about the bad that can occur, we prevent the good" category.  Yes, sometimes the edit feature can be abused, but preventing that is not worth the cost of the positives.  

Consider, for example, putting a time limit on edits.  If the time limit is at all liberal, then the type of editing that Keith is worried about will often have occurred already.  If it is not liberal, posters won't have a chance to go back and correct clumpsy wordings or inadvertent, misintended cutting remarks.  Then there are those threads where a list is being compiled.  One way to do it is to make everyone read through the entire thread and keep a culmulative list in his or her head.  Another way to do it is for the original poster to keep updating his or her list as new suggestions come in.  I, for one, appreciate it when posters do this.

[By the way, I don't think it was the end of the world for the example poster to have edited remarks that he was later embarassed about.  Looking at the date of the edit tells me that he learned from the thread.]

[Finally, I do think this was a question worth asking.]


----------



## BevL (May 10, 2007)

Very definitely editing within posts should not be restricted.  The few who choose to edit posts inappropriately will, in all likelihood, find another way to push the envelope if that avenue is closed.

I know that I have more than once posted something too quickly in response to something that, basically, ticked me off.  More than once I've regretted it as soon as I've hit that "send" button and more than once I've gone back really quickly to edit or in some cases delete with an, "I've changed my mind" comment as the reason for the edit.  For the "Let Cooler Heads Prevail" club, editing a post can avert the brouhahas that are too common on internet boards.

By restricting editing of posts, it's too easy to put the typing fingers in motion before the brain is in gear.


----------



## kapish (May 10, 2007)

2 thoughts: 

1. I am typing-challenged, grammar-challenged, and attention-challenged at times, and I almost always edit my posts to tidy them up and to add a picture or two. Since I edit minimum 50% of my posts, it may be a little difficult for me to adjust. 

2. I guess less than 1% of members fall in the category of blatant mis-conduct of altering their posts just to prove someone wrong.

If TUG makes such a decision, I will learn to live with it, just like how I am living with having to pay $4 for a gallon of gas!


----------



## AzMin (May 10, 2007)

Being relatively new to this forum, I use the search feature quite a bit, almost every day. The information I have found in many threads that have long been forgotten is quite valuable to me. 

In a few cases, I have found it very frustrating to read a thread in which many responses refer to, or quote a post that has been edited to the point that it's no longer recognizable or relevant to the topic. To me, this is similar to reading an article in a magazine or newspaper and then discovering that pages containing parts of the article have been torn out or paragraphs have been blacked out long after publication. Only part of the discussion is there; the rest, you have to guess. For newbies to timesharing (or RCI or II), it's not good to guess!

If you've ever tried to read an old magazine in the waiting room of a doctor's office after the coupon clippers got to it first, you'll understand. Better yet, try to read around the black marker lines in a document that you had to get through the Freedom of Information Act. That's a lesson in editing history. 

I think many new people come here and do the type of searches I do looking for answers or enlightenment on timeshare ownership and travel, both the good and the not-so-good. Many forums don't allow edits after the post has been quoted in subsequent replies. TUG isn't one of them. Although I believe I'm in the minority, I really hope this changes. 

Min


----------



## Avery (May 10, 2007)

I am in agreement with JohnMFaeth. I would hate to see my ability to edit restricted, due to the inappropriate actions of a miniscule minority of the membership here.

eta: Perhaps a member who uses the edit feature in an inappropriate fashion, should be limited going forward...


----------



## theo (May 10, 2007)

Fwiw, I personally think that editing opportunities should be time limited. While it is entirely appropriate to allow for correction of typographical errors within a brief time period, it's not necessary (or helpful to those viewing later) to allow for unlimited "revision of history". In my opinion, it would be much more informative to be able to follow, participate in, or later review the content within a thread if it was known with some confidence that said content has not been "doctored" after the fact to suit the whims or OP's. That's my two cents' worth --- and certainly worth at least what you've just paid to read it.


----------



## JimJ (May 10, 2007)

I agree that it is annoying to be reading a thread where posts have been drastically edited  However, in most instances these are from what I consider to be "annoying posters" anyway.  I usually just consider the source and then question myself as to why I'm even bothering to read that particular thread.


----------



## TUGBrian (May 10, 2007)

I like this idea...after a certain amount of time.


----------



## DeniseM (May 10, 2007)

I think this is a situation where individual posters need to be dealt with privately by an Admin.


----------



## TUGBrian (May 10, 2007)

In some situations you are right...however at the moment I do not believe there are any rules against editing your posts.

Im not really sure how to word a rule about "not editing your posts after the fact".


----------



## Fern Modena (May 10, 2007)

*Editing After Posting*

I have belonged to quite a few boards over the years.  Some, perhaps most, allow no editing by the OP after posting.  Others allow editing for the first hour or so after posting, then not at all.  I like this, because it gives you time to see what you posted and correct those "wild finger" spellings, etc.  It also allows you to put a "forgetaboutit" if you posted in haste and then realized it was in bad taste, in anger, etc.  I'm one of those who never uses the "preview" feature, btw.  So having that "golden hour" really helps me.

The problem with unlimited editing time is, of course, that the OP may change their post at will.  It isn't a huge problem now, but there has been a problem in the past.  I made an issue of it several years ago, and the person seems to have changed their behavior.

I personally don't see any reason why a person should need to edit their post days later.  You said it, you had a chance to look at it during the review period (the first hour), and you had a chance to correct it then.  If you changed your mind days later, get over it and move on!

JMHO, of course.  And obviously not in agreement with everybody else.

Fern


----------



## TUGBrian (May 10, 2007)

thats the fun part about being an admin/mod.

any decision you make will make some happy...others mad.


----------



## JudyS (May 10, 2007)

I'm another one of the many here who am "typing challenged."  Often, I don't notice a spelling or grammar error into I happen to re-read a thread a few hours or even days later.  Going back and re-reading later gives me a fresh perspective that enables me to spot errors I originally missed.  

I agree that editing posts to drastically change content is very rare, and I wouldn't want to see the whole board penalized for the actions of a few.  I also agree with the posters here who said that people who deliberately change the content of their posts are generally people who are best ignored anyway.

I would like to keep the ability to edit posts.


----------



## JudyS (May 10, 2007)

theo said:


> ...In my opinion, it would be much more informative to be able to follow, participate in, or later review the content within a thread if it was known with some confidence that said content has not been "doctored" after the fact to suit the whims or OP's. ....


Theo, are you aware that if a poster edits his or her post after any other participant has read it, the board software adds a note at the bottom saying that the post has been edited, and giving the most recent time of editing?  I know that it's a hassle to look at those tags, but if there is ever any concern that a post has been edited, one can check and make sure.


----------



## theo (May 10, 2007)

Re: >> Im not really sure how to word a rule about "not editing your posts after the fact".

It seems obvious to me. Identify a time frame parameter for edits and apply it, whether that time frame is "within 24 hours", or "within 48 hours" (or whatever a time consensus might be).


----------



## theo (May 10, 2007)

Re: >> Theo, are you aware that if a poster edits his or her post after any other participant has read it, the board software adds a note at the bottom saying that the post has been edited, and giving the most recent time of editing?<<

Yes, I am well aware of that fact. Absent from such "edit notation" however, is any useful or informative indication as to just how radically the OP may have actually been changed in the first place --- perhaps even altered completely from its original intent, content, position, etc. Just knowing it "has been edited" (or when) really doesn't tell me a thing that's useful or informative. 

This is certainly not a topic which would ever keep me awake for ten seconds at night, but it just seems to me that there is inherent value in preserving the tone, intent and content of an OP....... 
Just my opinion.


----------



## tashamen (May 10, 2007)

theo said:


> it just seems to me that there is inherent value in preserving the tone, intent and content of an OP.......



I agree.  The particular thread Keith referenced bothers me also because of how the gist of the original message has been lost by deletion and alteration of posts.  I initially posted on that thread that I may come to regret posting there later - and in fact I do now regret doing so.  Not because of what I said, but because the whole point of my posts and those of several others was to try to be helpful to Newbies by clarifying earlier statements, and I fear that despite our good intentions the thread now is so disjointed as to be anything but helpful to Newbies.


----------



## Fern Modena (Jun 9, 2007)

I still believe that editing your posts should be limited to the first hour or so after you post.  You can see the results of not having this rule here.  The original post was May 28th.  It was quite lengthy.  The text in it was deleted on June 8th.  After some 6,000 plus views and many responses.  The OP originally meant to post what he did.  Then when people questioned what he was saying, he wanted the thread deleted.  When he wasn't successful in getting that done, he deleted his own text in multiple notes.  

Now the whole thread is a mess.  Parts of his original notes still appear, because they were quoted, anyway.

It my personal opinion that if the coding allows, the board should be changed to where you can only edit your notes within the first half hour or hour.  That's plenty.  If you make grammar or spelling errors, it gives you plenty of time to correct them.  I always look at my notes immediately after they post, and I'd imagine most people do.

JMHO, of course.

Fern


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jun 9, 2007)

*Edit, Shmedditt.*




Fern Modena said:


> Now the whole thread is a mess.  Parts of his original notes still appear, because they were quoted, anyway.


Something similar happened recently in a big long TUG-BBS kerfuffle sparked by an opening entry & heading saying not to buy RCI timeshares.  The discussion got rolling good & hearty, but then a bunch of the early entries got edited away, leaving some of the later participants with a feeling that the whole thing was some kind of _Let's You & Him Fight_ sort of fuss.  Sheesh. 

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


----------



## BevL (Jun 9, 2007)

*It should be restricted.*

I posted earlier in this thread that I like being able to edit my posts, but an hour is certainly time enough to do that.  Again, if you post in haste, you can amend it before you have to regret in leisure.  But the thread the Fern is talking about might as well be closed, as it makes absolutely no sense at all as the original poster has basically deleted everything he said, going back almost two weeks, because he felt he was being picked on.

I should say, I don't have a dog in the pit on the thread we're discussing here.  I looked at it briefly but when I saw the numbers that were being thrown around, I knew it was completely out of my league.  But I think it's offside to go back two weeks later after a thread doesn't go the way you want it to and start editing all your posts.

Just my .02 worth.


----------



## Makai Guy (Jun 9, 2007)

Fern Modena said:


> It my personal opinion that if the coding allows, the board should be changed to where you can only edit your notes within the first half hour or hour.



I'd agree that 30 minutes or an hour should be sufficient for correction of typos and improving clarity of expression.

I've been looking into the available configuration options, and this can be set fairly easily.

The problem is it will prevent ALL editing of the post, including the subject line, thus circumventing the ability of the thread originator to modify the thread's overall title.  There is a separate setting for the time limit on editing message subject, but it only has meaning if the poster can edit his post.  We currently have the time limit for editing thread titles set to 48 hours.  

It is my feeling that the legitimate need to update a thread title comes along more frequently than editing abuse on old posts.

I've now set a limit on how long after posting a poster may edit his submission, on a _trial basis_.  To keep from shortening the title editing period, I've set the edit limit to 48 hours also, for now.  

Let's try this a while and see how it works out.  

(On a related note, you can edit your post for two minutes after your initial posting without an "Edited by" note getting appended to the bottom.)


----------



## Shoeshine (Jun 9, 2007)

..........


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jun 9, 2007)

Personally, I think 24 or 48 hours is fine.  In the examples cited - in which threads have been mangled by heavy post-editing, the actions have occurred days after the thread was started.

For myself, I find that while I do catch some stuff right after I post, other stuff I've written doesn't hit me until I've been away from the post for a bit.


----------



## Shoeshine (Jun 9, 2007)

*
Long live Editing !!*


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

*
Long live Editing !!*


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jun 9, 2007)

Shoeshine said:


> *I, humble and lovable Shoeshine,
> 100% come down on the side of allowing people to edit their Post
> at anytime .
> 
> ...


*

Sorry - I believe that an integral part of free speech is being held accountable for what you have said.

You can't have that both ways - you can't insist on freedom of speech and then simultaneously expect to not be held accountable for what you have said.

You absolutely have a free speech right to say you were misquoted or that you've changed your mind. You don't have a free speech basis to retroactively change what you said.

****

Our elected Congressman have a privilege (which I consider odious) of being able to edit how their words spoken in Congress are printed in the Congressional Record. Should I surmise from your remarks that you believe that those officials are merely exercising their First Amendment rights?*


----------



## Keitht (Jun 9, 2007)

Shoeshine said:


> Once a thread that I have participated in has gone dry,
> I edit out all my Post .
> 
> Always have , always will .
> ...



I feel that going back in and editing or deleting posts after others have responded shows a total lack of respect for other members of the board.  Just because you are no longer interested in the content of a topic doesn't mean others feel the same way.
Just the way I feel - always have, always will.


----------



## Makai Guy (Jun 9, 2007)

First amendment rights, indeed.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution controls what the US GOVERNMENT may do regarding your self-expression.   The GOVERNMENT can't keep you from setting up your own website or newspaper, for example, and expressing yourself to your heart's content (within some limitations regarding libel, treason, etc.).

But once you do set up such a private enterprise, you are free to establish whatever editorial policies you wish with regard to what OTHERS may express via your _private enterprise_.

The editorial polices for this bbs are laid out in the readily-available posting rules (link in blue bar near the top of every bbs page).  Those define the game that is played here.  If those rules don't suit you, then don't play.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jun 9, 2007)

Shoeshine said:


> *I, humble and lovable Shoeshine,
> 100% come down on the side of allowing people to edit their Post
> at anytime .
> 
> ...



Is that truly how you saw that event?  I am sorry ...but thats not at all how it happened.

you broke the rules....more than once...and broke them even after you were warned about breaking them.  Only after repeatedly ignoring your warnings were you threatened with being banned.

So to make you happy...I should have just let you break the rules and ignore my warnings?  I am sorry again...but that is not an option and if you feel it should be then you are in the wrong place.

I am not your father, I cant discipline you when you break the rules in any other way other than asking you to cease breaking them...when you ignore my requests...my only other action is to ban you.  Why this concept is cloudy or otherwise confusing to people is beyond me.


----------



## Bill4728 (Jun 9, 2007)

Funny you talk about the government and free speech. 

The members of congress are able to edit their remarks in the congreesional record. In fact edit isn't the right word. The can completely change what they said and add or delete huge sections if they feel like it. 

Talk about freedom to edit.


----------



## spatenfloot (Jun 9, 2007)

I think a time limit of 24 or 48 hours would be fine. That would allow people to correct typos or whatever without ruining the flow of the entire thread when someone decides the go back and revise half of the entire conversation so it no longer makes sense. Or the second poster in each thread could quote the entire OP message.


----------



## JLB (Jun 10, 2007)

As most involved in this discussion know, sometimes what is said can get carried away.

Then, in hindsight, when things are calmer and judgements more clear, it makes sense to edit or delete, especially personal criticisms or discussions clearly based on personal differences (rather than subject), as a method of apologizing, or along with apologizing, so that the comments that the OP has had a change of heart about, and perhaps no longer means, do not linger and continue to fester, perhaps long after the accident has been cleared away.

I realize that some see this as avoidance, but regardless of how a few view it, why should improper comments be allowed to linger forever on a forum that has a reputation for not allowing improper comments?  Improper comments are improper comments regardless of when they are made proper, or made to disappear.

Is it proper that someone be allowed to make a judgement about the motive, the intent, of another, when they really do not know?  Just over something as minor as a person changing their own comments?

As for grammatical and typographical errors, am I the only one that sees my own long after the fact?  I bet I could find at least one year-old post of mine with such errors, and want to correct them regardless of when it is I find them.

My schedule is not what it once was concerning Internet forums.  I don't sit at the computer all day long.  I visit once a day, if that, and don't linger.  I will not see my errors an hour later.  It would be at least a day, normally longer, and only if that thread had additional posts.  This post is different in that I have come back just to see what I would say differently, or add, or correct, immediately after the fact.

Is more rules what is called for at a time when the relaxation of existing rules is being promoted?  

Is this really a matter that affects that many people?

How about those whose have posted that they have a pet peeve against improper English and grammatical?  Shouldn't wee respect there opinons?  

Someone once said something like, "These are my words.  Don't use them without my permission," or something like that, and I would add, "but let me do with my own words whatever I want, whenever I decide."


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 10, 2007)

When someone asks a question, then they go back and change their question or remove it, those of us who answer feel goofy.  :annoyed: 

Why not let the question sit there?  Why change it, so our answers are hanging out there without a question.  Makes those of us who are trying to help look downright stupid.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Jun 10, 2007)

I vote for a 48 hour time limit for editing and/or deleting posts.


----------



## Keitht (Jun 10, 2007)

The question of correcting typo's really is very much a side issue.  If a typo is noticed which has actually caused the meaning of the post to be changed then a PM to the mod of the forum can address that.
I have no problem with somebody changing their views based on the replies received, but as far as I am concerned, the way to make that change of mind known is not to delete the original posts.  The person whose views have been changed should post to say that, and if they so wish, explain what has happened to change their original opinion.
The most likely effect of limiting the editing time is that people will think more about what they are saying and possibly tone down the language.  I see nothing negative in that.


----------



## camachinist (Jun 10, 2007)

In an emotional moment, one of the members on my Alzheimer's forum went in and deleted 3 months of posts (she's a 4 figure poster) and totally upset the continuity of many informative and supportive threads. While I support people's right to their own words, once they choose to communicate them, they have a responsibility which goes along with that right to choose. Preservation of the continuity of discourse is a time-honored tradition in journalism, where corrections (read addendums) are the preferred way of correcting factual errors or for reconsidering judgements. I personally leave my mistakes (whether in fact or judgement) intact and add the correction/change of mind as an edit (in < >). Most people, IME, don't. Devious ones definitely don't.

Most people catch spelling errors immediately (I have a spell checker running in my response box to catch most errors) so allowing edits for a short period of time, like an hour, would be my vote. That won't stop the devious/instigative folks, who will send their bomb and then retract it immediately, but should, in most cases preserve the continuity of discussions.

I personally despise having to quote everything I'm responding to merely to preserve the subject of discussion. Having been left responding to "nothing" many times, it's always on my mind on any forum which allows unlimited editing. 

So, my vote is one hour with only moderator access after that...

Pat


----------



## wbtimesharer (Jun 10, 2007)

I think edits should be okay until the first reply post occurs.   Going back and changing what was said after someone has posted is in my opinion completely rude.   If after someone posts a reply and a change is needed, then the OP should do their own reply that highlights the changes they think are needed.  The only exception I can see may fall in the LMR board as people sometimes have typos that provide misleading info on a potential rental.

As for the 5th amendment, free speech is a right granted to the citizens of the United States by their government.  Last time I checked, TUG is not an government body and the rules it establishes are governed by the constitution.  I think its rules should exist to make a fair and level playing field for all participants,

Bill


----------



## PeterS (Jun 10, 2007)

brennumtimesharer said:


> I think edits should be okay until the first reply post occurs.   Going back and changing what was said after someone has posted is in my opinion completely rude.   If after someone posts a reply and a change is needed, then the OP should do their own reply that highlights the changes they think are needed.  The only exception I can see may fall in the LMR board as people sometimes have typos that provide misleading info on a potential rental.
> 
> As for the 5th amendment, free speech is a right granted to the citizens of the United States by their government.  Last time I checked, TUG is not an government body and the rules it establishes are governed by the constitution.  I think its rules should exist to make a fair and level playing field for all participants,
> 
> Bill



That is perfect! Once another post comes in... no edits..

Not to rehash any old incidents but recently this was done after a person on TUG started a post with a very bold statement and when facts were presented that didn't agree with their original statement, they deleted all of their posts, including ones that admitted gaps in their due diligence. Failing to get the entire post deleted, they deleted everyone of their posts, so all the responses are there but all the posts that they answer are missing. Now the thread is closed and all the people that replied can't edit their responses to put the original questions back in..?!?!?!

This is a shame as there was good information given in that thread that is now lost...

If there is going to be no limit on editing of posts than you should allow editing (or at least deleting rights) of posts on closed threads too... 

If the opinion is everyone has the right to pull back there words.... why does that end when the thread is closed?

You can't have it both ways..... there are three choices:

1 Place a limit on editing based on time or until replied to
2 You have unlimited editing rights to all your posts, including closed threads... 
3 You should delete all closed threads...

Of course the option 2 and 3 will destroy the inherent knowledgebase of TUG.

Pete


----------



## Makai Guy (Jun 10, 2007)

brennumtimesharer said:


> I think edits should be okay until the first reply post occurs.



Not an option provided to us in this bbs software.  Can only allow all edits (previous setting), disallow all edits, or allow them for a set time period (current setting).


----------



## hipslo (Jun 10, 2007)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Sorry - I believe that an integral part of free speech is being held accountable for what you have said.
> 
> *You can't have that both ways - you can't insist on freedom of speech and then simultaneously expect to not be held accountable for what you have said.*
> 
> You absolutely have a free speech right to say you were misquoted or that you've changed your mind. You don't have a free speech basis to retroactively change what you said.



This is precisely correct.  We hear so many people going on and on about their "free speech" rights all the time (outside of TUG - in a broader sense) that what sometimes gets lost in all that is that free speech has consequences.  Free speech does not guarantee freedom from consequences flowing from that speech.  

Make any argument/ take any position you want about a rule on editing old posts, but let's not get carried away and start throwing around "free speech" as even remotely having anything to do with this. You can say whatever you want - you just have to do it in a NEW post.


----------



## Shoeshine (Jun 10, 2007)

..........


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 10, 2007)

Shoeshine, what is your gripe?   You don't have to post on TUG at all, if you don't want.  That is freedom too.  

There are always rules.  You cannot stand up in a college classroom and start filibustering, because that will get you into big trouble.  Is that free speech? 

If your speech hurts others, you can be sued, too.  Free speech has its limits.


----------



## hipslo (Jun 10, 2007)

Shoeshine said:


> Tyranny of the Majority ??
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
> 
> ...



What is it you'd like to say here on TUG that a rule against editing posts, once made, prohibits you from saying, by posting again to clarify/ amplify/retract/withdraw, or contradict what you've already said?  

Do you really think that all the cites to the governimg documents of this nation somehow validates your objection to a rule against editing posts?  If so, your grasp on the essence of those documents (as well as your sense of perspective - lighten up!) is pretty tenuous.


----------



## Andar (Jun 10, 2007)

I like the 12 or 24 hour rule on editing.   I noticed quite a few people post late at night. If they post before going to bed, they might not see typos, etc. until morning after they have rested


----------



## TUGBrian (Jun 10, 2007)

I would refer some of you to the posting rules and guidelines that you EACH agreed to when you registered here on the BBS.  If they are unclear in some way....please let me know and we will do what we can to make them less cloudy.

While this particular "feature" was not enabled in the past...IMO it was still covered by ITEM 1 in the posting rules:

*"The owners of the TUG BBS reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason."*

Also complaining about said moderation is covered in ITEM 7:

*"In addition, do not enter complaints about moderation into BBS messages. Such posts will be considered off-topic and will be removed. Any such complaints or discussion should be communicated to the bbs staff directly via email or personal message."*

I realize that very few people who register actually read these items in entirety....that does not excuse you from violating them during your participation here on the BBS.

We cannot come up with a specific single rule for every possible "issue" that could arise within a group of nearly 18,000 people all communicating their opinions from behind closed doors....but we do the best we can.

As stated before, any single rule or decision is going to upset some...and please others.  I dont know of any decision ever made that doesnt fall into this category.

That said, all rules are subject to interpretation and in many instances situations may arise that violate the letter of the rule...but not the sprit...and vice versa.  This is why the moderators are here, do you really think they(we) take time out of our already busy schedules and sit around to think up ways to violate your civil rights and or otherwise make you unahppy?
That is just absurd...when a situation arises...we deal with it then.  If it keeps happening, we implement measures to prevent it in the future.  Nothing is ever set in stone.

For those of you that have been around a very long time (far longer than me)...how many of you thought we would ever have to implement a COMPLETE BAN on topics such as politics and or religion?

I for one would be completely against this in the beginning...but after reading the countless threads that turned into cut-throat bloodbath "fire and brimstone" arguments...the rule was needed.

Its ironic we have come full circle in only a short time...

When I first got here...all I heard was "TUG MODERATES TOO MUCH" and even heard the word "nazi" a few times in regards to the rules.  I implemented changes and instructed moderators to be a bit more relaxed in enforcing the strict rules...to follow the sprit vs the letter of the law.  Now we are under fire for too little moderation.

Believe me, if there were a way to please each and every one of you...id do it tomorrow.


----------



## PerryM (Jun 10, 2007)

As someone who just did some editing of my past words, here are my thoughts:

1)	The BBS sets whatever standards they want and you either follow them or not use the BBS

2)	The ultimate example of free speech is Wikipedia and their unlimited amount of time to edit your own words and even others

3)	If someone wants to reference a past post the Quote button is there for that purpose.  That captures the words to be referenced.

My personal preference is unlimited editing of past posts and if someone needs to reference a post they use the quote button.

But I play according to the rule book.

I do recommend that if a rule change is made "Fair Warning" be given to folks to take the time to change past quotes that they have not yet gotten to.


----------



## mshatty (Jun 10, 2007)

PerryM said:


> As someone who just did some editing of my past words, here are my thoughts:
> 
> 1)	The BBS sets whatever standards they want and you either follow them or not use the BBS
> 
> ...




Ditto for me.


----------



## Shoeshine (Jun 10, 2007)

..........


----------



## TUGBrian (Jun 10, 2007)

is there a big long line of people who were going to edit past posts today that suddently cant due to the rule change?  I think not.

It was also mentioned that anything needing to be edited that falls outside the time alotted can be requested to be removed to a moderator or admin.  

Havent seen or heard of any of these requests.

This is getting a bit ridiculous.  I would recommend doing something more productive with your time.


----------



## PerryM (Jun 10, 2007)

I suggest that the TUG members decide what's best for TUG.

What's wrong with that?

A simple poll asking something like:

Does TUG need a cut off time to edit your own posts?

1) No (up until 6/10/07 this was the standard)
2) Yes - 1 day
3) Yes - 2 days
4) Yes - 1 week
5) yes - 1 Month

I've spend enough time contributing to TUG over the years to be at least asked my opinion about my own words.

P.S. (good thing I have more than 20 minutes to edit this)

What do other timeshare chat rooms do?  I don't know.

There are a lot of them out there - what have they done, if anything?

I'd suggest maybe a committee to look into this first then a poll as to the TUG member's voice.  I'd gladly volunteer for this committee if someone needs members.


----------



## GaryDouglas (Jun 11, 2007)

*You can't make a rule for everything...*

Generally speaking, I'm against making rules related to things that are rarely done.  It would be like making it against the law to change the station on your radio in the car because there have been accidents and even deaths that have occured under these circumstances.

There may be reasons, even some good reasons, for limiting editing, but none that are persuavive enough to go to the extreme of no longer being able to edit a posting.

I suppose I could live with being able to append a posting ANd not be able to change the original, but I would rather not go down that slippery slope.

I hope I didn't mis-type somethnig!


----------



## GaryDouglas (Jun 11, 2007)

*On the humorous side of mis-spelling*

"I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt!" author unkonwn...


----------



## TUGBrian (Jun 11, 2007)

The rule is in effect...you have 2 full days to edit a post after making it...I fail to see why having a longer time to do this is going to impact so many people in a profound way (other than preventing exactly what we want to prevent).

I have not yet heard one valid argument for why this rule shouldnt be in place other than "I dont like it".


----------



## Shoeshine (Jun 11, 2007)

..........


----------



## Shoeshine (Jun 11, 2007)

..........


----------



## PerryM (Jun 11, 2007)

TUG Improvements! said:


> The rule is in effect...you have 2 full days to edit a post after making it...I fail to see why having a longer time to do this is going to impact so many people in a profound way (other than preventing exactly what we want to prevent).
> 
> *I have not yet heard one valid argument for why this rule shouldnt be in place *other than "I dont like it".




Ok, if a call has been made for examples where editing of past posts is needed:

1)	Spelllling

2)	Updated information

3)	Links that worked last week don’t work anymore

4)	Recap of the entire thread in post #1

5)	Someone linking to your post and you want to respond to that link

6)	I just change my mind on something


All of the above happen to me on a regular basis.  Some of my posts are linked by other chat rooms and when I find out I put a disclaimer in the post or a welcome or change something.

I’ve used the technique of recapping a lengthy thread in post #1.  I’ve done that here and other chat rooms.

The purpose of a chat room is to learn; if I learn something I’d like to go back and update posts with my new information or opinion.

Sure now I can ask someone to go and change my own words in a past post – this is not a workable solution that I would ever use myself.  This becomes a disservice to the folks reading my posts.

As I think of more I’ll add to the above list – well, I guess I need to hustle and do it before my time is up.


----------



## PerryM (Jun 11, 2007)

*Stale bread and information...*

As of 6/10/2007 TUG now has a policy of dispensing stale information!  Any post more than 2 days old is stale and is not editable by the person creating the post.


This has global ramifications.

More than once I’ve Googled a topic and found a link right back to an old post of mine.  I became a global resource to many folks outside of TUG.  On more than one occasion I’ve gone back and updated that very post.  This happens to other chat rooms I frequent too.

I get eMails frequently from someone new to TUG when they stumble on my old post and ask me for more information.

RSS readers too reverence TUG posts and many of these allow for posts of 10+ days old to be included.  Now some of my posts are going to be stale and available worldwide outside of TUG.

I’m waiting for someone in the future to make a decision from stale posts and then demand I explain myself.

I find this distressing to say the least.


----------



## Keitht (Jun 11, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Ok, if a call has been made for examples where editing of past posts is needed:
> 
> 1)	Spelllling
> 
> ...



1.  There is a preview post button.  If you use that, or proof read, before posting spelling mistakes can be minimised.
2.  Add the information to the thread.  This has the added advantage of showing as new information.  *Edits to existing entries are not readily identified as new info.* 
4.  There is nothing to prevent you from quoting the entire OP in a reply, or copying and pasting the content into a new topic.
6.  If you change your mind, post it as a new entry in the thread and explain why you have changed your mind.  If people have responded to your original opinion and you then change the text, the respondent or the response may be made to look stupid.  



PerryM said:


> As of 6/10/2007 TUG now has a policy of dispensing stale information!  Any post more than 2 days old is stale and is not editable by the person creating the post.
> 
> I get eMails frequently from someone new to TUG when they stumble on my old post and ask me for more information.
> 
> I’m waiting for someone in the future to make a decision from stale posts and then demand I explain myself.



All written information becomes 'stale' over time, that's no reason to rewrite history.  Are you suggesting that all posts more than 2 days old should be deleted because they can't be relevant any more??
I have also received requests for more information on a subject after people have read things on the board.  That's no problem.  If the enquiry deserves a wider audience I either post onto the previous topic, or more likely will post a new topic.
If somebody 'demands an explanation' on the basis of old posts the obvious answer is that the information was correct at the date posted, but that you can't possibly be responsible for changes after that date.  Are you really claiming that you review every one of your posts every 2 days to ensure that the information is still valid?


----------



## PerryM (Jun 11, 2007)

Keitht said:


> 1.  There is a preview post button.  If you use that, or proof read, before posting spelling mistakes can be minimised.
> 2.  Add the information to the thread.  This has the added advantage of showing as new information.  *Edits to existing entries are not readily identified as new info.*
> 4.  There is nothing to prevent you from quoting the entire OP in a reply, or copying and pasting the content into a new topic.
> 6.  If you change your mind, post it as a new entry in the thread and explain why you have changed your mind.  If people have responded to your original opinion and you then change the text, the respondent or the response may be made to look stupid.
> ...



I take it upon myself to keep my past posts as up to date as possible.  Anything beyond that reading of my personal policy is speculation.

I am now prevented from doing what I try to do on TUG - provide my experiences and opinions.  Anything now more than 48 hours old is stale and I am not going to jump thru hoops to keep it up to date.  I have officially relinquished my best efforts to provide accurate information on TUG - I just don't have time to send memos to change my own words.


I will go with the official TUG policy, what ever it is.  Just be advised that TUG has transformed from a place where up to date information is available to a source of stale information.

In the information age this just doesn't seem the way to go.


----------



## Fern Modena (Jun 11, 2007)

*Here's my opinion, for better or worse*

The TUG BBS is a _forum_, a bulletin board, not a chat room.  Chat rooms are quite different from bulletin boards.  They are dynamically updated as things are posted.  Postings remain for minutes or hours, not long periods of time, unless archived.

Most bulletin board systems contain stale information.  Heck, so did the encyclopedia I'd used in the library as a child.  If I want to update, or amplify information I just add another post.  I did that recently on a Las Vegas post when I realized I had left out some information.  I also edited one about ten minutes later when I realized I misspoke.  If editing hadn't been available, I'd have had no problem just appending a new note to the thread.

When you go back _days later_ and  change information in a note, it may change the tone of the whole thread, and make replies off topic or strange.  That's unfair to the people who posted after you.  If you need to change information, putting the word UPDATE in the new note's title (in the same thread) tells people there is a change.  

It would be disappointing if you decided to no longer participate on TUG's Bulletin Board do to the editing issue.  But its your decision.

Fern


PerryM said:


> ---stuff deleted to save bandwidth---
> I will go with the official TUG policy, what ever it is.  Just be advised that TUG has transformed from a place where up to date information is available to a source of stale information.


----------



## PerryM (Jun 11, 2007)

Fern Modena said:


> The TUG BBS is a _forum_, a bulletin board, not a chat room.  Chat rooms are quite different from bulletin boards.  They are dynamically updated as things are posted.  Postings remain for minutes or hours, not long periods of time, unless archived.
> 
> Most bulletin board systems contain stale information.  Heck, so did the encyclopedia I'd used in the library as a child.  If I want to update, or amplify information I just add another post.  I did that recently on a Las Vegas post when I realized I had left out some information.  I also edited one about ten minutes later when I realized I misspoke.  If editing hadn't been available, I'd have had no problem just appending a new note to the thread.
> 
> ...



Fern, not to worry, I'm just absolving myself of my posts more than 48 hours old - they no longer belong to me but are now the property and responsibility of TUG.  I've already addressed this issue in my signature. I'm trying the best I can.

If someone wants to reference a prior post the quote button freezes the referenced post and is available for that poster for 48 hours before it too is lost to history.

To me the benchmark is Wikipedia - there are NO time limits there.  Sure the admin folks have things they don't want messed with but my articles from years ago are available 24/7 for me and anyone to update and keep fresh.

I guess this change is like II's or RCI's ability to change the rules on the fly - we all know how popular those are.  We have all agreed to unlimited changes of the rules on TUG.  I did and I'm not complaining just presenting my views and opinioins.  Now those are not allowed on Wikipedia.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Jun 11, 2007)

From IdiomsbyKids.com (the kids have got it right):


----------



## TUGBrian (Jun 11, 2007)

Shoeshine said:


> *The tyranny of the majority trampling the rights of the minority .*
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
> ...



Do you actually post anything helpful here on TUG?  I certainly dont see it.

As far as I am concerned, if you arent here to contribute...your opinion matters little in the grand scheme of things.

Also, by what measure do you think you are in the minority?

ah thats right...you just assume you are right.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jun 11, 2007)

Perry that signature is ridiculous....I honestly cannot believe a man of your  intelligence would stoop to this.

Truly disappointing....but if that is how you want to play it I wont stop you.


----------



## bruwery (Jun 11, 2007)

William Shakespeare's publishing agent said it best: "To edit, or not to edit - that is the question."

Way back when I was in high school, it would have been nice if somebody had gone back and had Shakespeare's writings edited to make them congruent with our modern tongue.  What does "_anon_" mean, anyway, and what did I learn from all that "_come hither_" nonsense?

The only thing I learned is don't kill yourself if your lover dies, because maybe they're not really dead.

So much for the humorous part of today's post.  Pardon me while I go hide to avoid the shoes being thrown at me.  Maybe in a few hours I'll get tired of hiding, edit the post, and pretend I never said anything stupid.



PerryM said:


> As of 6/10/2007 TUG now has a policy of dispensing stale information!  Any post more than 2 days old is stale and is not editable by the person creating the post.
> 
> 
> This has global ramifications.
> ...



Distressing?  I think you're confusing distress with something else.

The administrators of this website should run it as they see fit, not as the users tell them to run it.  They may allow our input, but that doesn't obligate them to let us run the show.  They're providing us with a service which I appreciate.  I've read tons of good advice out here from many very intelligent posters - including yourself.  I've also read some bad advice.  Yes, I've also read some outdated advice.

However, it's up to me to filter the good from the bad and the obsolete.  I've found that it's much easier to do that filtering when posts are NOT edited, but allowed to flow normally.

Here's a simplified example:

*Newbie*: Should I buy a 2BR at Whale Poop Resort, Week 6 for $3,000?
*Timeshare Expert (TE) #1*: No.  That's too much money for that resort.
*TE#2*: That's a bad week at that resort.  Not much to do in the winter.
*TE#3*: There's a special assessment pending there.
*Newbie*: Thanks for your help.  I'll avoid this purchase.

Now, if Newbie goes back and changes her OP to read Westin Kaanapali Ocean Resort Villas instead of Whale Poop Resort, the entire thread becomes confusing and rather misleading - regardless of who's reading it.

Mark


----------



## The Conch Man (Jun 11, 2007)

Is this the inherent knowledgebase of TUG? ~~    :annoyed: 





TUG Improvements! said:


> This is getting a bit ridiculous. I would recommend doing something more productive with your time.


----------



## PerryM (Jun 11, 2007)

TUG Improvements! said:


> Perry that signature is ridiculous....I honestly cannot believe a man of your  intelligence would stoop to this.
> 
> Truly disappointing....but if that is how you want to play it I wont stop you.




I agree, I already had someone eMail me direct and I’ll just drown so I’ve changed it.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jun 11, 2007)

PerryM said:


> I take it upon myself to keep my past posts as up to date as possible.  Anything beyond that reading of my personal policy is speculation.



Why you cannot do this by simply clicking the "new reply" button is beyond me.  In fact you did this NUMEROUS times in the PH thread...why is it suddenly a problem now? 



> I am now prevented from doing what I try to do on TUG - provide my experiences and opinions.



This is absurd...nothing has changed at all.  I bet if I go through each and every one of your posts I wouldnt find more than a handful of ones you have edited at all.



> Anything now more than 48 hours old is stale and I am not going to jump thru hoops to keep it up to date.



again...the majority of your posts are over 48 hours old now...and were over 48 hours old before this rule.  Your argument has no foundation.  Are you actually saying that before the rule...your 49 hour and older posts were perfectly acceptable...but now that you cant change them...even though you DIDNT change them to begin with...they are stale and no longer your true thoughts.

I just do not get your logic in this....its like you simply just want to argue the point.




> I have officially relinquished my best efforts to provide accurate information on TUG - I just don't have time to send memos to change my own words.



see above




> I will go with the official TUG policy, what ever it is.



Why are we still arguing then?



> Just be advised that TUG has transformed from a place where up to date information is available to a source of stale information.



again...an invalid and ridiculous argument.  perhaps if you had changed every one of your posts in the past...but you havent...nor has 99.99999% of anyone who has ever posted here.



> In the information age this just doesn't seem the way to go.



perhaps in your mind it doesnt seem the way to go, however you completely miss the entire purpose of this.

you deleted the contents of an entire thread that YOU STARTED and provided detailed and educational information for all to see.  You took it upon yourself to eliminate that information, you did not consult us...you did not ask any of the members, you made the decision yourself and in turn destroyed a thread that thousands of people read.

Yet you claim you are the one being hurt by this rule.

I am sorry, I just do not see that as the case at all.  I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## PerryM (Jun 11, 2007)

TUG Improvements! said:


> <snip>
> I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.



This is fine with me.  I rarely agree 100% with anyone (but I do with my wife!)

P.S.
Unless asked directly I'm finished with this topic.  However, if anyone want's to pursue this further I'm at your disposal.

I live by the rules presented to me in all aspects of my life; I will do so here too.


----------



## bruwery (Jun 11, 2007)

PerryM said:


> This is fine with me.  I rarely agree 100% with anyone (but I do with my wife!)



Hmm.  In my house, my wife agrees WITH ME.  If she doesn't, I show her who's boss - then to drive home the point, I go outside and sleep in the rain with no supper or blankets.  It works every time.  Eventually, when I change my position, she sees it my way.


----------



## wbtimesharer (Jun 11, 2007)

Shoeshine said:


> Tyranny of the Majority ??
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I believe that placing a limit on editing is protecting the rights of all.  You can say anything you want in this forum, but if you do you should be prepared to deal with the outcomes.  How would you feel if someone in a reply to your post called you a "Blithering Idiot" (I can think of a lot worse).  You complain to the administrator and when he looks, the post has been edited and the text removed.

I think that is a major violation of civility. If you can take the time to type a response, you should then have the decency to stand behind what you typed.  

Imagine if people could go back and edit emails that they send out.  What kind of mess would that leave.

Bill


----------



## wbtimesharer (Jun 11, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Ok, if a call has been made for examples where editing of past posts is needed:
> 
> 1)	Spelllling
> 
> ...



Perry, aside from the spelling issue which in my opinion nobody cares two hoots about as they work around it, I think the rest of your concerns can be addressed in a follow on post making corrections.  I think that is quicker than going back through and cleaning a lengthy posts and it also highlights the missteps you made in a clear and concise manner.

Bill


----------



## hipslo (Jun 11, 2007)

PerryM said:


> To me the benchmark is Wikipedia - there are NO time limits there.  Sure the admin folks have things they don't want messed with but my articles from years ago are available 24/7 for me and anyone to update and keep fresh.



There is a difference between updating articles to be current, and changing one part of a dialogue that involves multiple parties.  In one case, clarity is gained (at least in theory).  In the other, the whole essence of the dialogue is (potentially) altered, and, more often than not, the clarity OF THE DIALOGUE (as opposed to the particular post, which should not be regarded in a vacuum) suffers, making the thread less valuable to readers who first come across it later.   

Everyone knows that old threads (heck, even current threads!) often have out of date or incorrect information, what's the big deal?


----------



## Keitht (Jun 11, 2007)

bruwery said:


> Hmm.  In my house, my wife agrees WITH ME.  If she doesn't, I show her who's boss - then to drive home the point, I go outside and sleep in the rain with no supper or blankets.  It works every time.  Eventually, when I change my position, she sees it my way.



Just like you I always have the final say in an argument.  The fact that the 'say' is "Yes dear" is neither here nor there.


----------



## Bill4728 (Jun 11, 2007)

When I edit a post of mine, I try to use the strikeout font available. This makes it much easier clearer to understand what I was editing.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jun 12, 2007)

*How Did This Shake Out ?*

OK, what's the outcome ? 

Limits on edits ? 

No limits ? 

More discussion ?  

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


----------



## Makai Guy (Jun 12, 2007)

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=343181&postcount=26


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jun 12, 2007)

*Thanks.*

Don't know how I missed it.  But I think I can live with it.  Thanks. 

-AC.​


----------

