29 replies to this topic

[Alias]

Onto business, this was rejected as it 'wasn't possible', however:

Help -> Posting: Editing posts said:

When editing you may see an option to 'Add the 'Edit by' line in this post?'. If you tick this then it will show up in the posts that it has been edited and the time at which it was edited. If this option does not appear, then the edit by line will always be added to the post.

After seeing this and doing some experimentation, it's perfectly possible. It takes 20 seconds in the Admin CP to change, and I can't see why it should be an 'admin exclusive' feature. Even if not for the member base, why not for the Gold Members/Global Moos/Staff?

Discuss.

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

It is there to stop abuses by rogue mods or other member with ability to edit others posts. The original poster might know his post is being modified, however normal members have to way to know it, and it can cause misunderstandings. I trust all the staff in the forum, but this is a feature that cannot miss.

[Alias]

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 21:00, said:

It is there to stop abuses by rogue mods

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 21:00, said:

I trust all the staff in the forum

Self contradiction, there?

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 21:00, said:

The original poster might know his post is being modified, however normal members have to way to know it, and it can cause misunderstandings.

There can be a time limit imposed on edits (specific limit up for debate). Before you say "what about editing instead of double posting", as far as I know this version of IPB merges together posts if you double post anyway.

Edited by Alias, 19 April 2009 - 11:16.

[Kichō]

Agreed once again, I did a bit a googling and it's apparently possible. (Yes it was IPB)

[Alias]

I've made a test forum and done it myself, I know it is possible (I wouldn't have revived this, otherwise).

Edited by Alias, 19 April 2009 - 11:59.

[Dauth]

I just don't see the point. If you don't want edit markers then get it right first time. Frankly I'd like to remove it from all admins too but I suspect people would bitch.

Edited by Dauth, 19 April 2009 - 12:31.

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

Alias, on 19 Apr 2009, 12:16, said:

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 21:00, said:

It is there to stop abuses by rogue mods

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 21:00, said:

I trust all the staff in the forum

Self contradiction, there?

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 21:00, said:

The original poster might know his post is being modified, however normal members have to way to know it, and it can cause misunderstandings.

There can be a time limit imposed on edits (specific limit up for debate). Before you say "what about editing instead of double posting", as far as I know this version of IPB merges together posts if you double post anyway.

Maybe I meant drunken mods...

[Pav:3d]

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 13:47, said:

Alias, on 19 Apr 2009, 12:16, said:

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 21:00, said:

It is there to stop abuses by rogue mods

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 21:00, said:

I trust all the staff in the forum

Self contradiction, there?

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 21:00, said:

The original poster might know his post is being modified, however normal members have to way to know it, and it can cause misunderstandings.

There can be a time limit imposed on edits (specific limit up for debate). Before you say "what about editing instead of double posting", as far as I know this version of IPB merges together posts if you double post anyway.

Maybe I meant drunken mods...

Lul how often is that an issue?

[BeefJeRKy]

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 8:47, said:

Alias, on 19 Apr 2009, 12:16, said:

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 21:00, said:

It is there to stop abuses by rogue mods

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 21:00, said:

I trust all the staff in the forum

Self contradiction, there?

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 21:00, said:

The original poster might know his post is being modified, however normal members have to way to know it, and it can cause misunderstandings.

There can be a time limit imposed on edits (specific limit up for debate). Before you say "what about editing instead of double posting", as far as I know this version of IPB merges together posts if you double post anyway.

Maybe I meant drunken mods...

It happened once and I can ensure it won't happen again. As to the topic, I am neutral. I would still include the edited by message anyhow.

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

Scope, on 19 Apr 2009, 18:30, said:

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 8:47, said:

Alias, on 19 Apr 2009, 12:16, said:

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 21:00, said:

It is there to stop abuses by rogue mods

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 21:00, said:

I trust all the staff in the forum

Self contradiction, there?

ΓΛPΤΘΓ, on 19 Apr 2009, 21:00, said:

The original poster might know his post is being modified, however normal members have to way to know it, and it can cause misunderstandings.

There can be a time limit imposed on edits (specific limit up for debate). Before you say "what about editing instead of double posting", as far as I know this version of IPB merges together posts if you double post anyway.

Maybe I meant drunken mods...

It happened once and I can ensure it won't happen again. As to the topic, I am neutral. I would still include the edited by message anyhow.

Really, I don't even know it happened at all, I was only joking.

[Stinger]

Abusable when people quote.

No to this.

[Alias]

How, exactly?

[Dauth]

Its not abusable, I just don't see anyone volunteering to change this for all the groups. The less time spent in the ACP the better.

The fact is the edit line is just that a single line. Live with it.

[Alias]

Dauth, on 20 Apr 2009, 4:30, said:

Its not abusable, I just don't see anyone volunteering to change this for all the groups.

"We're too lazy to do it" hardly justifies neglecting something that has public support.

Even so, it can't be more than 10 or 15 minutes work.

Edited by Alias, 19 April 2009 - 18:35.

[Whitey]

It doesn't make sense that an administrator should be too uncaring to administrate, does it?

Hell, bump me up to an administrator and I'll get right on it.

-Rorschach

Edited by Rorschach, 20 April 2009 - 21:18.

[Dauth]

Rorschach, on 19 Apr 2009, 19:37, said:

It doesn't make sense that an administrator should be too uncaring to administrate, does it?

Hell, bump me up to an administrator and I'll get right on it.

-Rorschach

Boidy without any question or shadow of a doubt, you won't get given administrator rank.

Here's what I'll do, I'll ask the staff+ and then I'll reopen this thread with their response. You say you want to have a grace period of 20 seconds where edits don't get marked. I'll find out what they think.

[Stinger]

The Staff and Admins have discussed the request and feel that it is not in the best interests to allow a grace period for the editing of a post. While we realise members may find this frustrating when an edit is created for a small and inconsequential issue such as a typographical error, it is our decision to leave the "Edited by" footer in place to avoid any confusion to those reading or moderating a thread. Although this is likely to be an unpopular decision it is to avoid any confusion in the future.

In the interest of fairness, however, we will be removing the ability to suppress an edit from the Administrator group to enable transparency regarding the issue of post changes.

Stinger, on behalf of the Fallout Studios Moderating Team.

[Whitey]

Thank you Mr. Dauth for pointing out the obvious.

As far as denying this for the sake of avoiding confusion: LOL WUT? I still fail to see the reasoning against the allowance of a short grace period. I'd like to ask for clarification.

Quick note on the edit: I originally referred to Dauth as Codecat in this post, and then realized my mistake, and thus adjusted it quickly, proving that the grace period would be desirable for whatever part of the general forumgoers I represent.

-Rorschach

Edited by Rorschach, 20 April 2009 - 21:18.

[TheDR]

You could try to just read what your posting before you hit add reply, rather than after.

[Whitey]

Or you could just allow a grace period of ~ 3 minutes.

-Rorschach

[Wizard]

We've discussed this at length and the answer is no. By leaving the edit legend where it is allows everyone the opportunity to see what has been changed which will prevent issues when it comes to contraversial topics and posts. You might not see the issue but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

[Whitey]

So why is this issue so classified? Certainly, if it has occurred, and others have seen it, it is a public issue and should be treated as such, with information for the purposes of clarification being revealed? Without the publication of such information, the argument comes off as "Because we said so", and that is not adequate.

-Rorschach

[CodeCat]

Do you want the answer served with some wine, too?

[Whitey]

No. I'd prefer it with simply a relevant and useful reply.

And by that I mean a glass of ice water with a lemon slice.

-Rorschach

Edited by Rorschach, 20 April 2009 - 22:26.

[Wizard]

I fail to see where you have gotten the idea that anything here is classified, hidden, kept secret or "because we said so". There is room for abuse, by any party, to remove the edit legend from a post. My point, and one that you don't appear to understand, is that we do not want there to be a way to abuse the facility. Leaving a grace period will open up the opportunity for the "I didn't say that [quote], you made it up. Look there is no edit legend, how could I have said anything other than what is in there now!!" argument. Now whether you accept that or not, that is the decision of the people who make these choices, the people have deal with the situations that occur on the forums. Leaving an edit legend is transparent proof of any amendment that has taken place to a post.

Enough ice in it for you?