https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/trade-my-fish-tales-for-your-addams-family#post-1803591

So you're changing policy based on some very rare occurrences? so we all have to suffer because of this? REALLY? think about this a bit.

a far better approach is to reprimand the rare individuals that do bad things. or remove their IDs. but don't make everyone suffer for small stupid stuff.

again, micro management is not the answer. trying to control everyone/everything is silly at best, and tyrannical at worse.

i'm really having a hard time thinking that silly Fishtales trade/sell thread (really who cares anyway?) is enough to implement this policy.

While I understand why Robin would implement a new policy, I do not think this is a big problem to start with, and it may create other problems and could become a nuisance. I see a number of threads in which changing the first post or the title is beneficial:

- FS threads. (Title may be edited with "new price" or "sold")
- Tech threads: the solution could be inserted in the first post
- Add a poll
- if someone makes a dumb mistake (I did that at least once) or add a outrageous statement or proposal, allowing him/her to remove it seems fair to me.

I would suggest keeping a trace - each edited post should have a mandatory statement (edited by xx on (insert date)) even if the original version is not available.

_{Post edited by jlm33: removed spelling mistake...}

those are both from relatively inactive members.

Maybe make the no edit rule for members that have been here less than X amount plus less than X activity. If any old timers violate the 'rule' of not editing actual content then just remove privlages.

Probably also a good idea to provide guidelines for editing posts and what is appropriate or not.

Whysnow Robin mentioned this already.

It's not as rare as you think, it's happening a lot.

I agree with you. Users who are pulling this kind of garbage should be either suspended or banned. IMO, people trolling threads is one thing, but when you are not an honest seller, that is 100 times worse.

I still think for sale posts should be locked from editing.

how often do you edit your posts months later? also you must lead a charmed life if that constitutes suffering.

by then the damage is done.

tyrannical.

an example was requested and provided. it's not the sole reason.

Robin has talked about solutions to these such as allowing the first post in a thread to remain editable, and other options.

this wouldn't effect proofreading or fixing dumb mistakes. pretty sure the plan is for your post to remain editable for several hours. people editing posts days later is part of the problem -- the conversation becomes nonsensical.

Everyone has control over what they post. Unless the mind controlling aliens are REAL ... are they?

Once you hit "Send Post" the content belongs to Pinside, and the internet. No one would like a capricious pinsider removing/deleting all of their helpful technical threads in a fit of anger or a rage quit.

Pinside has needed this to prevent rage quits and deletes. Some really helpful information could be lost just due to alcohol for instance.

I like the strike text idea. I have seen that used and it's functional.

I think the only way to truly handle this situation is to develop an edit history. This would allow users full, unlimited editing of all their posts all the time. Robin could place a button to click near the bottom right corner of the post that says "post edited" and when you click on that button it would show all the previous edits, from most current to oldest, as well as the date and time each version of the post was originally posted. This would allow the post to look clean and not filled with edit junk, but that the original versions could still be uncovered by anyone.

Say someone edits out their hateful comments, leaving a one-sided argument. You'd be able to click on the Edit History button on the post and see all of the previous edits.

i don't like showing a post's history. sorta defeats the purpose of editing if people can see the unedited version (which i'm sure everyone will do out of curiosity). i like the idea of a grace period of several hours, after which it becomes permanent. (except things like OPs in restoration threads and the like)

Maybe a 15 minute grace period without a publicly viewable editing history?

works for me. or kick it up to an hour or a day even, whatever. i wonder though how eager Robin is to implement version control for posts.

With all due respect, I think you are overreacting. This is a policy that will affect virtually no one. How often do people go back and edit a post weeks or months later? I don't think I ever have. The only ones who do it are people who want to remove some of their personal history from Pinside. They do it because they are angry, or crazy, or have a meltdown. Others do it because they got caught in a lie and want to cover their tracks. These are the types of situations that this policy is trying to address. Your average Pinsider will be unaffected by these changes. In the rare circumstance that someone does need to legitimately go back and change one of their old posts, all they have to do is ask.

Yes, there are some types of threads that warrant more editing. That's why we are discussing the idea of having different editing policies in different sub-forums. For example, it makes perfect sense for a restoration thread to have more relaxed editing rules than some other types of threads. Obviously, people often wish to change the price in a for sale thread. These are the types of things we are thinking about when making these changes.

I think Aurich perfectly summed it up:

Like RGP, Pinside is an archive of pinball history. Not only does it contain a wealth of technical knowledge, but it is also a collection of stories, interactions, pricing history, etc ... It is our duty to make sure that all of this history remains intact, and these new policies are designed to do just that.

seems like a reasonable compromise

Have you read all the posts in this thread? Have you done any research before making these claims?
I'll answer a few of your questions that I don't think you put in the time to learn the answers to before making some wild claims. Those answers are in this thread, and likely in Robin's database.
-mof

How do you know that? Have you reviewed the total number of legit/helpful/popular users like Aurich/vid1900 who edit and re-edit helpful tech posts before you invent facts like this?

If you re-read my post earlier, you'll recall my response to this:

I am not part of the group "the only ones" neither is vid1900 or Aurich.

My advice to you is:

1) read posts in a thread before stating opinion as fact.
2) before making assertions, gather more facts.

Hope that helps.

-mof

This is an interesting idea as long is edit history is HIDDEN by default.

-mof

I've read every post in this thread, and I stand by everything that I said. Very few users will be affected by this. Just because you aren't happy with it, doesn't mean it is a bad policy. Plus, nothing is set in stone yet. Robin is listening to all the arguments for and against, and he is determined to make a policy that works best for Pinside as a whole.

Definitely wouldn't work for me. I sometimes make mistakes when I start a thread, and I then have to go fix them right away to avoid looking foolish. Sometimes it's a timing issue (slow internet/cpu) or posting twice. This happens to me -- monthly I'd say.
-mof

Facebook is a forum, a personal stream, a collection of private groups, messageboards, chats, etc.

In every case except for PMs, Facebook allows users to delete things that are posted publicly, even in private groups.

It depends upon the nature of the forum. I run a bunch of private and public forums as well.

If the general policy is the user is entitled to "own" and "control" his content, he/she should have the right to edit/delete their content.

If the policy is to appropriate other peoples' work and take their right to it away from them, for whatever reason, then it would be consistent to prohibit editing/deleting. If this is the case, there should be a clear terms of service which states this, and users should acknowledge and recognize that when they post, they are relinquishing rights to the content they supply (which obviously also includes images). This is not necessarily assumed on any private or public system.

Private or not private, there are "rights." If someone uploads copyrighted content onto Pinside, that doesn't take away the copyright to the content.

It's the principal of the matter in my opinion. What's more important? Respecting user rights, or the site's right?

In any case, I like Robin's compromise... although I still think, that if a user wants to delete their content, they should. I totally understand why this can be problematic -- you have to balance the rights of the users with the value of the archive, but it just seems respectful to people and what they contribute. Obviously some people might "take their ball and go home" and leave gaps in old content, but this works both ways.. if someone is upset enough to want to do that (and their content was valuable enough to miss if it was deleted), that's an issue that can't be addressed simply by denying them the ability alter their posts. There's a larger issue going on that wouldn't be as obvious. You're losing a good user, who won't post any more, or a bad user just did you a favor and removed all their non-useful content.

That's a great way to dismiss the opinion of someone who has probably contributed more to Pinball than the total of all the content on Pinside. And you guys wonder why Clay doesn't participate more here?

Clay is talking about the principal of the matter. Your argument is like saying, "Well, what's the harm in the NSA archiving all internet content? If you're not doing anything illegal, why should it matter?"

It's the principal.

Some people appreciate the ability to have more control over what they submit. It's not overreacting. It's about freedom and rights. If some people feel this way, respect their opinion. You may disagree, but you don't have to tell them in so many words, you think they're wrong. Just disagree.

that's a great way to dismiss my perfectly valid question of how often do you edit posts months later, that don't fall under the already-discussed exceptions such as OPs of restoration or for sale threads?

ok nevermind i am not gonna argue with someone who equates pinside with the NSA.

I wasn't equating Pinside with the NSA. It was an analogy. Analogy != Equivalence.

Likewise, I shouldn't argue with someone who takes other peoples words out of context and over-dramatizes them.

Everybody knows what Clay meant by the term "suffer", not in any harsh way - it was a figure of speech. But perhaps you don't realize that to some people, their knowledge and their words are things of value that they might desire to protect and have control over? If you don't feel this way about yours, that's your choice, but belittling someone else who does is not necessarily a respectful way to get your point across. Just sayin'

still haven't heard a valid reason to edit posts months later outside of restoration and for sale threads.

FTFY

try again -- still haven't heard ANY reason, valid or not.

(i mean specific reasons that actually happen, not vague principles (edited to seem less rude))

It's not a minor issue - as other forum admins would tell you.

People like to rewrite history... the old "think before you post" mantra doesn't really sink in for a lot of people.

While I tend to agree with you, here is one. I announced a tourney several weeks in advance on local forums. Turns out one of the machines supposed to be here won't be ready in time. I just edited the list several months after the initial announcement.

A far simpler approach is to have different edit rules for a specialized forum like a restoration forum. If there are very specific needs for that kind of topic that are specialized - then treat it as specialized.

But you still have the problem of people that get mad and try to 'take all their toys home' and wipe out all their previous contributions.

I agree that it's overkill for sure, but I don't really care one way or the other yet.

How about limiting the NUMBER of edits somebody could do in a certain timeframe. That would stop people from emptying threads and shouldn't create new problems.

Look, I completely understand that these new rules could potentially make posting on Pinside less convenient in certain circumstances. I get that. Unfortunately, this is a case where a few bad apples have fu**ed it up for everyone else. In a perfect world, restrictions such as these wouldn't be necessary, but the fact of the matter is that there are some assholes out there that need limits.

You haven't heard of 4 strong use cases where ongoing editing is common?

1. club thread (mof use case)
2. ongoing restoration (mof use case)
3. Selling third party custom items (Aurich use case)
4. ongoing instructional (vid1900 use case)

There may be more, I just felt that 4 was enough to make a strong point.
-mof

I like the passion in this thread.
-mof

Robin's already discussed making exceptions for those forums and thread types though.

If editing rules were implemented in the "Machines for Sale" thread only, would that cover 80%+ of the "problems" trying to be solved here? That's what I'm wondering...

-mof

Seems that the change has created more unrest than the original problem.

I agree with you, but that sounds like a moderation problem, and not an editing problem. Usually if someone is going to edit something, they're more likely to tone-DOWN the amplitude of a-hole-ness, than crank it up.

I think the best way to address increasing hostility which tends to screw up the harmony on the board is to be more strict in sanctioning people who respond to criticism with personal insults (veiled or otherwise).

Anyway, I don't really have that much of a dog in this hunt. I see both sides. I think restricting editing means more work for moderators though.

Has there been a lot of complaints about content being removed? I've seen the occasional "." posts, but I figure, no big loss. Then again, it would be pretty hilarious if someone created a thread entitled, "Here's the direct URL to download all new Stern game code.." and the post just had "." in it.

Ugh. Do NOT want.

What you're proposing is that for any posts we make, we lose our ownership on. They become the property of Pinside. I do understand the problem that you're trying to fix, but this is definitely an overreaction to the problem.

I'm another that would probably cease posting, or at least very radically cut down with a policy change like this.

Infact, I expect this wouldn't even be legal/put you in awkward footing in many jurisdictions. In England the Data Protection act allows users to request that companies delete any personally identifiable information. With most forums the users can manage this themselves, but if you remove that ability then you'll need to micromanage requests from users that want to delete their information.

If it's an issue that needs to be addressed, then my vote would be, as others have suggested, allow posters to append rather than edit posts/titles. Seems like the easiest way to address the problem.

it's trying to prevent people from re-writing history. if a person wants to participate in a community, then they need to take responsibility for the things they say while a member of it.

because you can't edit a post a month later? how often do you do this, and for what reason?

no it wouldn't. it's a privately-run forum.

mods and admins assist users with their accounts all the time on here. that's not a new burden.

No, because I lose ownership of content that I have provided. It's the principals of the policy change that upset me.

Look, I get it. It 'solves' two problems:

a) There may be once or twice amongst the thousands of users where someone has got upset and deleted their content. So what? They provided that content. For whatever reason they've decided they don't want to be part of the community and now delete that content. It may break up the flow of the thread, but I would argue that a user is well within their rights to delete their own content. Most often this kind of thing happens when a user has been in an argument and would like the opportunity to start over. I'd say that is more a good thing than a bad thing.

b) Someone may maliciously change their post to cause trouble in some capacity. Whether its faking the price that something sold for, or whatever, its bad behaviour. That should already be addressable by banning.

A policy change like this is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Over the top, unnecessary and unwelcome.

if you say something in real life, you don't get to go back in time and pretend you didn't say it. you can apologize for it later, you can seek to make ammends, but your actions are your responsibility. i don't really see what principle is being stood up for here, other than the ability to cover up a mistake with plausible deniability.

I think the one year limit on secondary posts is quite reasonable. After all on the rare occasion there was a serious matter after one year a person could always contact Robin or a mod to take care of it. Those instances would be rare in my opinion.

You no longer "own" it once it's been posted publicly. You're broadcasting to the entire internet, this isn't "private" in any sense of the word. That's part of what being a member of a public community entails.

If that makes you uncomfortable then don't post.

I post here under my real name, I'm very conscious that everything I say is public. I've probably said a few things I regret. So it goes.

I just want editing for practical reasons, so I can update long running sale threads with the most current info for instance. I'm very sympathetic to the abuse that Robin is trying to address.

There is a very real difference between a momentary conversation between a limited audience, and an internet post that will likely be around for decades, visible to the entire world.

It's a serious issue that is being addressed by courts and in law : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27631001

I vote for no edits, only appends. USENET got along for decades without edits. Don't have diarrhea of the keyboard and you should have no problems any edits can be made before pushing the send post button .. corrections can be made in subsequent posts. If you're don't think you'll be comfortable with your post in the future, maybe you shouldn't post it in the present?

Usenet always has had the ability to delete messages though.

How about restricting editing after x amount of time, but allowing deletions after that, but deletions go into a moderation queue and you have to explain why you're wanting to delete something? This way you could monitor scenarios where you sense a bunch of useful content being removed and the user has a chance to explain why.

There are scenarios where this could happen. Let's say someone decides to write a book about some topic they discussed on Pinside, and had information and photos they put up a year ago. A publisher would want that information taken down prior to publishing the book. (I recognize in this situation, they could petition a moderator to delete the content, but if it was scattered around, it would be easier for the user themselves to submit the individual posts to the deletion queue and not make extra work for mods to track down stuff - just an idea -- and generally I think this is an aside to the basic rule that gives most users the ability to delete posts regardless)