This probably going to sound like I’m ingratiating myself to the powers that be but, fine, I’m just calling it the way I see it.
I’ve been a member of many sites structured like this and the concept of first ammendment and such always comes up when somebody gets out of hand. I think privately held websites are a very different animal and not subject to the same kind of rules we think we’re somehow entitled to.
Because we’re Americans with a right to protest peacefully (when we apply for a permit to do so) and to write a letter to a newspaper (which they’re under no obligation to print) we think that we can say anything at anytime. Well, that just isn’t so. With our rights there are responsibilities that are inherent to common sense (the old “Can I yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded theatre?” argument).
In a website like this we started out with no ability to edit our own words and if we erred, tough cookies. To be able to say something accurately is important to me but not the responsibility of the site owner. That they have made it possible for me to do so is a favor for which I’m grateful. If I post a thread and someone misspells something unintentionally I now have the power to edit that spelling if I so desire. I don’t do it all the time but I will on occasion if i like the person and i think they might be criticized for it. Just this morning, Americanvidiot called someone an asshat for pronouncing “nuclear”, “nucular”. I don’t know what it is about me but I don’t like to see good people mocked and called names… something in my childhood, perhaps.
So, now, here we are. we have the ability to delete someone’s post for any reason we see fit. Again, call me naíve but I’m going to believe that the overwhelming majority of people are not going to abuse this ability. That they will use it to rid themselves of the time-wasting posts of someone like Decepticon with his profanity and ad hominems is likely, I confess. Frankly, I don’t have a problem with that. Everyone will have a different level of tolerance for certain things. I can tell you that any post containing Nazi or Hitler-related material in a thread that I start will vanish. Don’t like that? You have the right not to like that.
It’s a bit like the 2nd ammendment, if you’ll indulge me. I would much rather have the ability to deal with the attack of profanity and ad hominems swiftly and on my own rather than to have to depend on the site owners to do it for me when they get around to it. Those may not sound like good arguments but they’re mine, at any rate. That’s why I started the group: to give us a space to talk about it and, thus, allow the site owners a chance to check out how people feel in a semi-organized way. I know Madness feels differently but I’m not completely sure why, so, I hope you’re reading this so you can weigh in.
However, I am not going to go back over every comment I have made to see if someone has altered it two or three weeks after I posted it, so it does trouble me a little that it might happen and I could be unaware of it for quite a while. Perhaps the person who starts a post should be able to delete the comments of an undesirable, for whatever reason, but not be able to edit the comments of others. I cannot forsee a reason for me to alter others comments – anyone who wants to belittle others for their spelling or grammar has bigger problems to deal with.
As I have said before, I have been more than impressed by the comments others have made, and I look forward to reading what you people have to say.
I very much dislike the new edit/delete functions, particularly the super privileges given to those who start a thread. It leads to vandalism, spoofing, censorship, and irresponsible revisionism. I feel that its inherent drawbacks greatly outweigh it benefits.
censorship: Nothing stops a thread owner from deleting entire posts for any reason whatsoever. I’ve seen my own posts, which I spent a fair amount of time on, disappear from discussion, their only crime being that they argued against what the thread owner’s position was.
vandalism/spoofing: More commonly, I’ve seen dozens of posts, including my own, replaced with text that the thread owner composed, as if to suggest that the original poster authored it. These revised posts are unfailingly clownish, lewd, and self-parodying. In these instances, I just delete all my posts from the thread, since the thread owner can no longer be trusted to maintain the integrity of the original discussion.
revisionism: Posting demands responsibility, and I think it is highly irresponsible to delete or modify your own posts if someone has made a good faith effort to debate you on the points you make in that post. If you have made a spelling error or a factual error, nothing is stopping you from writing a correction in a subsequent post. But to go back and claim that you had never made a particular argument or error, when you had, is poor sportsmanship and unbecoming.
While this might have seemed like a good idea at the time of its introduction, members have already learned how to abuse it and have caused the discussions to degrade rather than improve. I will be pleased if the site operators decide to roll back these functions.
So, then, it seems that what people are favoring so far is the full delete within a thread of ones own creation rather than an editing capablity? Am I reading that right?
I’ve not suffered the same problem as Madness has, so, I can’t speak to that point other than theoretically. I’ve only seen it applied to D and Luke. I guess what needs to be decided philosophicaly is what belongs to whom. Does anything I write belong to the site or me? Since this is not my property, I’m borrowing the space to write my thoughts, am I not? Who decides what happens on that borrowed space?
It reminds me of what happens when I play a broadcast concert on MPR. I play the notes and interpret according to my will and the the public can listen free of charge. The tape belongs to MPR and they decide what to do with it. My creativity is now under control of Minneosta Public Radio. It’s complex and yet not. If the site owners decide to close up shop tomorrow will my rights be abridged? No. I have to find someplace else to write my thoughts. The next place may have different rules altogether.
It’s a pity that the editing or deleting had to take place at all because of nonsense that is distasteful, boring, and useless. The bottom line for me is just that this has nothing whatsoever to do with 1st ammendment issues or censorship. It has to do with the clarity of the rules established by a site owner and whether I wish to abide by those rules.
princetrumpet on Aug 20
This probably going to sound like I’m ingratiating myself to the powers that be but, fine, I’m just calling it the way I see it.
I’ve been a member of many sites structured like this and the concept of first ammendment and such always comes up when somebody gets out of hand. I think privately held websites are a very different animal and not subject to the same kind of rules we think we’re somehow entitled to.
Because we’re Americans with a right to protest peacefully (when we apply for a permit to do so) and to write a letter to a newspaper (which they’re under no obligation to print) we think that we can say anything at anytime. Well, that just isn’t so. With our rights there are responsibilities that are inherent to common sense (the old “Can I yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded theatre?” argument).
In a website like this we started out with no ability to edit our own words and if we erred, tough cookies. To be able to say something accurately is important to me but not the responsibility of the site owner. That they have made it possible for me to do so is a favor for which I’m grateful. If I post a thread and someone misspells something unintentionally I now have the power to edit that spelling if I so desire. I don’t do it all the time but I will on occasion if i like the person and i think they might be criticized for it. Just this morning, Americanvidiot called someone an asshat for pronouncing “nuclear”, “nucular”. I don’t know what it is about me but I don’t like to see good people mocked and called names… something in my childhood, perhaps.
So, now, here we are. we have the ability to delete someone’s post for any reason we see fit. Again, call me naíve but I’m going to believe that the overwhelming majority of people are not going to abuse this ability. That they will use it to rid themselves of the time-wasting posts of someone like Decepticon with his profanity and ad hominems is likely, I confess. Frankly, I don’t have a problem with that. Everyone will have a different level of tolerance for certain things. I can tell you that any post containing Nazi or Hitler-related material in a thread that I start will vanish. Don’t like that? You have the right not to like that.
It’s a bit like the 2nd ammendment, if you’ll indulge me. I would much rather have the ability to deal with the attack of profanity and ad hominems swiftly and on my own rather than to have to depend on the site owners to do it for me when they get around to it. Those may not sound like good arguments but they’re mine, at any rate. That’s why I started the group: to give us a space to talk about it and, thus, allow the site owners a chance to check out how people feel in a semi-organized way. I know Madness feels differently but I’m not completely sure why, so, I hope you’re reading this so you can weigh in.
Let’s tawk.
marantAZ on Aug 20
Very well said.
However, I am not going to go back over every comment I have made to see if someone has altered it two or three weeks after I posted it, so it does trouble me a little that it might happen and I could be unaware of it for quite a while. Perhaps the person who starts a post should be able to delete the comments of an undesirable, for whatever reason, but not be able to edit the comments of others. I cannot forsee a reason for me to alter others comments – anyone who wants to belittle others for their spelling or grammar has bigger problems to deal with.
As I have said before, I have been more than impressed by the comments others have made, and I look forward to reading what you people have to say.
Madness
on Aug 20
I very much dislike the new edit/delete functions, particularly the super privileges given to those who start a thread. It leads to vandalism, spoofing, censorship, and irresponsible revisionism. I feel that its inherent drawbacks greatly outweigh it benefits.
censorship: Nothing stops a thread owner from deleting entire posts for any reason whatsoever. I’ve seen my own posts, which I spent a fair amount of time on, disappear from discussion, their only crime being that they argued against what the thread owner’s position was.
vandalism/spoofing: More commonly, I’ve seen dozens of posts, including my own, replaced with text that the thread owner composed, as if to suggest that the original poster authored it. These revised posts are unfailingly clownish, lewd, and self-parodying. In these instances, I just delete all my posts from the thread, since the thread owner can no longer be trusted to maintain the integrity of the original discussion.
revisionism: Posting demands responsibility, and I think it is highly irresponsible to delete or modify your own posts if someone has made a good faith effort to debate you on the points you make in that post. If you have made a spelling error or a factual error, nothing is stopping you from writing a correction in a subsequent post. But to go back and claim that you had never made a particular argument or error, when you had, is poor sportsmanship and unbecoming.
While this might have seemed like a good idea at the time of its introduction, members have already learned how to abuse it and have caused the discussions to degrade rather than improve. I will be pleased if the site operators decide to roll back these functions.
princetrumpet on Aug 21
So, then, it seems that what people are favoring so far is the full delete within a thread of ones own creation rather than an editing capablity? Am I reading that right?
I’ve not suffered the same problem as Madness has, so, I can’t speak to that point other than theoretically. I’ve only seen it applied to D and Luke. I guess what needs to be decided philosophicaly is what belongs to whom. Does anything I write belong to the site or me? Since this is not my property, I’m borrowing the space to write my thoughts, am I not? Who decides what happens on that borrowed space?
It reminds me of what happens when I play a broadcast concert on MPR. I play the notes and interpret according to my will and the the public can listen free of charge. The tape belongs to MPR and they decide what to do with it. My creativity is now under control of Minneosta Public Radio. It’s complex and yet not. If the site owners decide to close up shop tomorrow will my rights be abridged? No. I have to find someplace else to write my thoughts. The next place may have different rules altogether.
It’s a pity that the editing or deleting had to take place at all because of nonsense that is distasteful, boring, and useless. The bottom line for me is just that this has nothing whatsoever to do with 1st ammendment issues or censorship. It has to do with the clarity of the rules established by a site owner and whether I wish to abide by those rules.
johnpeterson on Aug 21
I like full editing capability but would like to a way to view the history of any changed entries.
Perhaps group entries should function more like wiki pages where anyone can edit entries with full rollback capability.
This would allow a group to stay on topic and filter out distracting comments while maintaining the integrity of submissions.
I’ve suggested something along these lines in the past posting: We Need A Wiki
It would be nice if submitters were notified when their entries are edited.