I understand the need to keep content and threads from turning into a confusing, fragmented mess.

However, I also believe that what people post, should be something they control. If someone posts something and wants to edit/delete it (whether it's 3 hours or 3 days later), they should have that right. I've never liked the fact that you could not outright delete posts on Pinside. Every other system from Facebook to RGP/usenet has this ability. When you make posts permanent, non-removable/editable, you are basically taking control of your users' content and away from them.

I can see both sides of the issue, but I am not convinced taking away peoples' rights to their own writing is the best solution, and I don't know of many popular sites that do this.

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.

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'

FTFY

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.

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)

Any system that refused to honor cancel requests could have their feed cut.

Suffice to say, the old adage of "Once you put it online, it's there forever" should not be dismissed, but it is respectful to give users the choice and option to minimize their content footprint where possible. Even though Google archives content, you can have your data removed from their index by request. Generally, there are some basic RFCs that apply in these situations that networks on the Internet are supposed to respect.

The exception does not prove the rule. There are systems in place to remove content from usenet and Google groups. Participating systems by their charter must adhere to the RFCs or face being cut off from the uplink feeds.

EDIT: Same thing applies to the comment below ..\