So you can edit a post without there being a clear signal of it with a timestamp and all that as long as you edit within a short time. While that's normally fine since for most threads nobody will read it until a while after your edit, sometimes in rapidfire threads people will already be quoting, especially if they've got email alerts turned on. Does anybody else think we should remove the "free edit" feature?
EDIT: The idea is that you are allowed to fix typos and mistakes from your posts before having the mark of shame of an edited post. It's a good feature and it should never ever go away.
I also really like the feature for those reasons. But is it worth the price of those awkward moments when people have a quote that doesn't match the displayed post, especially if they're getting email alerts? It doesn't just let you edit typos; you can add a sentence that makes your argument better, etc.
Yeah, I do that too. I don't know if the mods necessarily even know what we're talking about since they might see all edits regardless. I just wanted to flag it because I saw it come up in a thread. Maybe it just doesn't happen often enough to matter.
We actually debated taking them away sometime last year, because we got access to edit histories (which we didn't previously), and only edits after those 3 minutes were recorded, but we decided against it. Letting people have those couple of minutes to fix their post with no shame is a good thing, in my opinion - I use it all the time myself, and not having that option would be pretty rough.
And no, we don't see all edits anyway. If you don't see that a post has been edited, we don't either.
And no, we don't see all edits anyway. If you don't see that a post has been edited, we don't either.
Stupid question that's almost on topic:
If a poster posts something infraction worthy, but more than 3 minutes later edits it out, could he still get the infraction? Does it depend on whether that part was quoted?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
If a poster posts something infraction worthy, but more than 3 minutes later edits it out, could he still get the infraction? Does it depend on whether that part was quoted?
We consider that self-moderation and usually let it be if the user corrects him/herself before we get to the post. But if we notice that this is being abused (which has happened before), we'll act on it.
Given that this probably won't get changed, what's the best way to mitigate embarrassing quotes? Is it more the job of the quoter to know that the other guy can edit in three minutes or the job of the quoted not to make substantive changes in three minutes? EDIT: In other words, what's the breakdown in an etiquette sense?
Is this a big issue? Just quote who you feel like quoting, it may reveal that they ninja edited if you're super speedy, they will feel great shame (immense, even), and that's the end of it. Doesn't really hamper conversation or anything.
Sometimes. If somebody says something really stupid and then ninja edits, yes, it's embarrassing for the quoted. But if somebody adds a crucial line to an argument, it's not so much embarrassing for the quoted as it screws up the quoter and might make them look a bit dumb down the road. And that can hamper a conversation.
EDIT:
Hypothetical Example:
Person 1. Man, that combo is so good. How can I possibly answer it?
Person 2. It's easy. Don't be lazy.
Person 1. No, nobody has found a good answer. I'm all ears. [NINJA EDIT] And no, don't tell me to use a counter. Those aren't viable outside of blue, rarely work in this format, whatever.
Person 1. [quoting without ninja edit] USE COUNTERSPELLS.
Person 2. Dude, that's a terrible argument.
Person 1. Don't move the goal post!
Person 2. Huh?
Sometimes. If somebody says something really stupid and then ninja edits, yes, it's embarrassing for the quoted. But if somebody adds a crucial line to an argument, it's not so much embarrassing for the quoted as it screws up the quoter and might make them look a bit dumb down the road. And that can hamper a conversation.
It would be useful if you gave an example.
Just kidding.
How would edit stamps help this situation? It shows outsiders that the second person wasn't just being dense, but the people actually involved in the conversation should be able to follow along just fine.
How on earth is having edited your post a "mark of shame"? Like, wtf?
It conveys the general impression that you did not think your post through, or that you changed what you said after seeing others' reactions. In other words, that you don't stand by what you wrote.
e.g.: "Man up! Stop editing posts, ya ***! :swear:"
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
His post was in no way idiotic - what I think of as idiotic was his implication. People thinking less of a post because it was edited.
Yet it is so.
I get the feeling this just isn't an issue—we probably own't get rid of the free edits, and nobody seems to care about the awkward moments when people quote original versions without timestamps.
EDIT: The idea is that you are allowed to fix typos and mistakes from your posts before having the mark of shame of an edited post. It's a good feature and it should never ever go away.
My YouTube Channel
And no, we don't see all edits anyway. If you don't see that a post has been edited, we don't either.
Stupid question that's almost on topic:
If a poster posts something infraction worthy, but more than 3 minutes later edits it out, could he still get the infraction? Does it depend on whether that part was quoted?
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
We consider that self-moderation and usually let it be if the user corrects him/herself before we get to the post. But if we notice that this is being abused (which has happened before), we'll act on it.
EDIT:
Hypothetical Example:
Person 1. Man, that combo is so good. How can I possibly answer it?
Person 2. It's easy. Don't be lazy.
Person 1. No, nobody has found a good answer. I'm all ears. [NINJA EDIT] And no, don't tell me to use a counter. Those aren't viable outside of blue, rarely work in this format, whatever.
Person 1. [quoting without ninja edit] USE COUNTERSPELLS.
Person 2. Dude, that's a terrible argument.
Person 1. Don't move the goal post!
Person 2. Huh?
It would be useful if you gave an example.
How would edit stamps help this situation? It shows outsiders that the second person wasn't just being dense, but the people actually involved in the conversation should be able to follow along just fine.
Amazing sig by
GobboElysiumKCW,TFE,god_child,Harkius,DalkonCledwin,Arnnaria,Rianalnn, Gaea's Regent our sig main man!Join the EXODUS
Long live lightning edits!
It's like a mini-game in my posting
Gaea's Regent, rianalnn
EDIT:
It conveys the general impression that you did not think your post through, or that you changed what you said after seeing others' reactions. In other words, that you don't stand by what you wrote.
e.g.: "Man up! Stop editing posts, ya ***! :swear:"
EDIT 2: Sarnathed by The Manasjap.
My YouTube Channel
How is it idiotic? I thought his post was well thought out.
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
That's exactly what I'd expect to hear from someone with only 400 posts.
Yet it is so.
I get the feeling this just isn't an issue—we probably own't get rid of the free edits, and nobody seems to care about the awkward moments when people quote original versions without timestamps.
Social conventions usually are.
My YouTube Channel