tennyson wrote:

Brady Bunch wrote:

Maybe there should be some sort of rule for moderators that they can't delete posts of people they are disagreeing with unless the post is clearly obscene.

Maybe a system need to be devised that more than one moderator concurence is required to delete a post. 

One charge was made that a post was changed. IF that occured, the structure should be changed that no one can ever change another person's post. Only that person themself should be able to ever change their own post. 

I need to disagree.  I have made "silent edits" to a few posts these months, always to clear up some pretty glaring typos or spelling that could be embarassing to the author; once or twice to add spaces for paragraph breaks.  That is what mods and administrators do.

It is very easy for a mod or administrator to begin to reply---particularly reply with quote--and inadvertenly begin to edit a post.  That is because where you see just an "quote" button we see three buttons "delete", "edit", and "quote".  Fortunately the "delete" button triggers a popup box asking "are you sure...?"   No such critter for "edit".  So yes, it has happened to me on several occasions that I go to reply and then, crap, notice that I am in "edit"; so quickly back out and hope that no damage has ben done.

As I understand it, that was the situation for Goose earlier this evening.  He restored what had been inadverntently removed.  Unfortunately it was on a very active thread so some noticed the disappearance/ reapperance and probably wondered if his real name was Harry Houdini.
 

Tarnation wrote:

tennyson wrote:

Brady Bunch wrote:

Maybe there should be some sort of rule for moderators that they can't delete posts of people they are disagreeing with unless the post is clearly obscene.

Maybe a system need to be devised that more than one moderator concurence is required to delete a post. 

One charge was made that a post was changed. IF that occured, the structure should be changed that no one can ever change another person's post. Only that person themself should be able to ever change their own post. 

I need to disagree.  I have made "silent edits" to a few posts these months, always to clear up some pretty glaring typos or spelling that could be embarassing to the author; once or twice to add spaces for paragraph breaks.  That is what mods and administrators do.

It is very easy for a mod or administrator to begin to reply---particularly reply with quote--and inadvertenly begin to edit a post.  That is because where you see just an "quote" button we see three buttons "delete", "edit", and "quote".  Fortunately the "delete" button triggers a popup box asking "are you sure...?"   No such critter for "edit".  So yes, it has happened to me on several occasions that I go to reply and then, crap, notice that I am in "edit"; so quickly back out and hope that no damage has ben done.

As I understand it, that was the situation for Goose earlier this evening.  He restored what had been inadverntently removed.  Unfortunately it was on a very active thread so some noticed the disappearance/ reapperance and probably wondered if his real name was Harry Houdini.
 

Although I understand your reasons for possibly changing posts, I do not think that is a good practice even if as you suggest you think the poster made an error that could even possibly be embarrasing. 

I would still suggest some better formal method of review by more than one person before doing a delete. I know that will be a real pain, but I think it would be worth it. 



 

Goose wrote:

You guys need to decide if you want to do anything about personal attacks and thread derailment or not. This was brought up again and again on the old board..
Hey, I'm happy to get in there and mix it up with people. But the message that I got was that we were not to do that.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I don't see a problem with what you are suggesting and my above suggestions. 



 

tennyson wrote:

.
Although I understand your reasons for possibly changing posts, I do not think that is a good practice even if as you suggest you think the poster made an error that could even possibly be embarrasing.

I would still suggest some better formal method of review by more than one person before doing a delete. I know that will be a real pain, but I think it would be worth it.

First point:  I should have added in my post that every time I made an edit I sent the author a PM explaining what I'd done and why I had done it.  In every case I had a reply thanking me.

Second point:   No excuse, but an explanation.  Right now we have two Administrators and one Moderator.  Perhaps this should be expanded to 2 A & 3 M; with the deletion of a post requiring the consent of at least two.  But even now, a "second opinion" could--and really should be sought before deleting a post in a thread where a Moderator or Administrator is actively engaging the particpant in question.

Last edited by Tarnation (4/29/2015 10:03 pm)

Tarnation wrote:

tennyson wrote:

.
Although I understand your reasons for possibly changing posts, I do not think that is a good practice even if as you suggest you think the poster made an error that could even possibly be embarrasing.

I would still suggest some better formal method of review by more than one person before doing a delete. I know that will be a real pain, but I think it would be worth it.

Second point: No excuse, but an explanation. Right now we have two Administrators and one Moderator. Perhaps this should be expanded to 2 A & 3 M; with the deletion of a post requiring the consent of at least two. But even now, a "second opinion" could--and really should be sought before deleting a post in a thread where a Moderator or Administrator is actively engaging the particpant in question.

That would be a good change in my opinion.