Boxerworks.com

The wording "BEYOND plenty" and "Why should Boxerworks be different" on the vote options seems a little bias.

I thought 2 hours was plenty, but if I voted for it, I would be voting that it was "BEYOND plenty" or "TOO much" and we would just be voting again later.

15 mins is WAY too short. Hell, it took me more than 15mins to type this little bit of ahhh... stuff.

I'm for a time limit (believe it or not) but I voted for not having ANY due to the reasons above.

I guess too that before the blowup, you could not flag post, or have them removed unless it was spam.
Now that we have an ever growing list of moderators, I feel a lot of the problems will be solved. I'm really feel hopeful.
If something like a post is in the wrong place, it can now be moved without having to do what was being done before.
And if there are limits that we didn't have before, and a post like US or OZ Rally notes at the TOP of this new flat view type forum needed to have something added after 2 days, they should be able to help (without having to flag your own post)

Bevahiour seems to be the crux of the matter. I've never seen a recreational (key word there) forum that time-limited the edit function, but then the issues we saw in the past were fairly unique too. I do agree that the questions should be worded as functionally as possible- the way they stand now as I write this seems a little bit 'editorialised.' possibly reflecting someone's opinions. Polls with tangible outcomes should strive for objectivity, period.

I also remain open to the idea that this issue might require some trial & error to get comfy.

I like the two hour thing. On another board, I once got this as a PM:

buttholesurfer wrote:Do me a favor brother and erase that sh!t will ya,Why you have the chance.

In response to this:

http://forum.surfermag.com/forum/showfl ... ost1672110

Obviously I let it stand even as he backtracked and edited his OG posts. You'd think someone with 20,000 posts would check the date of OP.

I plan to vote for no time limit to editing posts, though I would easily accept the 2 hour time limit.

It appears to me that there are two reasons one might wish to put some time limit on editing one's own posts. One such reason would be for historical value, as already mentioned.

The other reason would come into play in the somewhat rare event when there is a heated (and almost always personal) discussion and one of the parties might modify his own post in order to lie about what he actually said. I believe this has happened on the old forum but I don't know for sure. For sure there have been accusations of such manuvering. There is a defense to such a thing in a heated argument, and that would be the quote button. Punching the quote button will nail down what the person actually said when you respond to it.

As for the historical record being modified, I don't see it being such a big deal. True, the record would be modified. But posts are usually made in the context of a discussion involving several people. I believe that the historical record is almost always used when a person wants to find out what has been said in the past. Having one post in the discussion being non original, I believe the purpose for which the historical discussion is commonly used will still be satisfied.

My attitude, which I believe is shared by many people on the forum, is that one of the things that have made the old forum so popular is the very lack of rules about what might comprise "acceptable" posting. I have in the past participated in a lutherie forum which was tightly controlled by the owner and moderators. Moreover the rules themselves were not up for discussion. That forum I only go to when I want information. For me the forum was sterile and uninviting. Said another way, the life, if there ever was any, was sucked out of that forum.

That is not what I would want for Boxerworks. In summary, my preference would be for fewer rules rather than more. Note that I said fewer rules, not no rules. I believe that people come to Boxerworks for many different reasons. And while those reasons may not be my cup of tea, the freedom of people to express themselves has made the forum richer, or so I think.

There was a notable exception on the old forum. I'm not going to mention any names, nor do I think I need to. That person I believe came close to destroying the forum. I was contemplating quitting the forum, and probably would have done so exceept for my stubborness in being (from my perspective) forced out. Action needs to be taken in extreme circumstances but when the extreme circumstances happen, action needs to be taken. In the case (that I'm dancing around naming) action was eventually taken and in my view, the forum saved.

I have drifted almost entirely off topic I know.

I want to drift again now, onto a different, but related subject:

It appears to me that as a moderator, the forum allows me to modify anybody's post. I suspect the reason for this is so the moderator can delete unacceptable content yet retain the good of the post. But I'm still mildly disturbed by this. I can understand that a moderator might be empowered to delete an unequivocally unacceptable post, especially a spam post. Such judgments can be pretty straight forward. Editing a post is something different. I am concerned about modifying or deleting part of a post. Since I haven't tied such a thing I wonder if the software leaves any tracks so that the reader can see that the post has been modified by someone other the author. As I said, though, I am only mildly distubed about the ability to modify somebody else's post. In the event that I ever saw a need to do this I would damn sure leave my own tracks as to who did it and why.


Ken

I agree with Dave's thoughts.

Oh Great Mistress, if you carefully read all the language of your survey choices, they are (to paraphrase):

1) 15 minutes which is what everyone does so anything else is unreasonable

2) 2 hours which is too long but you've chosen it anyway.

3) Unlimited unless some idiot abuses it again and then I'll just put it back to 15 minutes the way I wanted it in the first place.


Like Veg, I have not found that 15 minutes is what everyone else is doing. There's only one other board that I frequent that has a limit (that I have noticed), and it appears to be about 24 hours. So, from my admittedly limited perspective, 15 minutes is what no one else is doing, and no limit is what almost everyone is doing.

This is not just about spelling or format changes, or about removing something nasty that you later realize that you shouldn't have said. Often someone makes a long complicated post explaining how to do a mechanical procedure, and later a fellow forum member may notice a technical error in those instruction which could lead to damage or a safety hazard. Frequently, that process of corrections being suggested by other members cannot take place in the period of two hours, and it almost never takes place within 15 minutes. Likewise, many members make such a post at the end of the evening, and then, when they get up the next day, they notice an error (not that I'm suggesting that there could have been any debilitating substances involved that night before).

I'm not sure we need a limit, but if we do, I think 24 hours would take care of most of those technical correction issues. I voted for no limit, but I think 24 hours would be just as satisfactory.

I clearly stand in a minority, since I voted for a 15 minute editing period. The reason I did so has as much to do with the way I compile a post as anything else, since I tend to respond when I feel i'm adding something of value (although others might well debate that!) and sometimes compose posts which I then delete before posting because I'm not comfortable with what I've written for whatever reason.

I also value the Preview tab, and generally re-read a post in that format. It amazes me how often I find spelling errors, grammatical errors, or simply poor sentence structure when I do that. For that reason, it wouldn't bother me much if there was no edit option at all. No thanks required folks, that's what we minority groups are here for . . .

Problem with this is there is two types of correction -

firstly spelling, grammer , syntax, etc, and as a old school pro who allways had someome to take dictation and type my stuff my posts are worse than most. Typing at work and late at night doesnt help either.

The other is rewriting history, to remove something you would prefer not to have said at the time.

But as there is no way of separating them any decision will always be a compromise

Max Headroom wrote:I also value the Preview tab, and generally re-read a post in that format. It amazes me how often I find spelling errors, grammatical errors, or simply poor sentence structure when I do that. For that reason, it wouldn't bother me much if there was no edit option at all. No thanks required folks, that's what we minority groups are here for . . .

I've known you for a while now.
You never liked to edit, even when you could.

Me, even with Preview, I never see it until AFTER I hit Summit..... ahhh.... few times.
Oh, btw, never use google as a speal cheaker.

You minorities all think alike.
Edit, maybe we should stick with your old tag line