I have ot admit it's a bit stupid, yes. I can't even remember the reasons we stopped it in the first place (the technical reasons are surmountable, but I think we took a conscious decision not to allow it). I'll have a word with Mr C and see if we can remedy...
CA StreamMagic 6 | CA 751BD | CA 651A | PMC DB1i
Moderator. mail: john.duncan.whf at the mail of g dot com
It would be nice to allow you to at least edit your first post until someone replies. That way if for example you've made a simple speeling mistook you can edit it, but with the safeguard that you can't rewrite history. This is the only forum I've ever seen anywhere which won't allow you to edit your opening post at all.
Main gear: Mac Mini > HRT Streamer II+ > Marantz PM66 KI > Mission 794
Also cluttering-up the place:
Thorens TD160 no cartridge; Marantz CD63 mkII KI; Technics SL-P777; Cyrus 2 + PSX; Cyrus Tuner; Nakamichi DR-1
As I recall the chronology, there was a period when no editing of any posts was allowed, I believe after a spate of posts being edited in argumentative threads which made subsequent posts not make sense. Maxflinn may or may not have been a main culprit. This was later changed to allow editing of posts until they were replied to or quoted or opening posts at any stage. This greater latitude may or may not have coincided with Maxflinn being banned. I also don't understand why opening posts can't be edited, at least to begin with.
HiFi / A/V / Bedroom
Thanks JD, I know you still have influence!
And here is an example.
Putting out fire with gasoline
If we get a vote, count me in.....especially if starting a thread after one too many Guinesesesus!
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." André Gide
No, the chronology was more like (IIRC):
- old system allowed everybody to edit everything
- new system's default position was nobody could edit anything
- we fiddled with things to try to make it a bit more usable, but couldn't get opening post editing to work
- we ran out of time
- it kind of works most of the time so let's not worry about it too much
- now in retrospect we could do something about it so why don't we
I like your version better though.
Well I got 1 and 2 right. My 3 is definitely better than your 3, 4 and 5 and we all agree on 6.
We are in moderatorly discussion on the subject, and have thought of some reasons why it might not be such a good idea, but we are going to test and get back to you...
So why might it not be such a good idea?
Not being critical, just being curious.
I'd like to check what the ability to edit one's posts actually confers; such as whether he or she can unpublish an entire thread if they like, or can delete any comments on it, or can change the author, or posting time or suchlike, all of which would be Bad Things. If it means that a poster can edit the text and nothing else, then we'll turn it on.
Definitely agree with all that: all I'm on about is being able to correct the text of your first post until someone replies.
All that other stuff should be mod-level. Though if editing the text in your first post refreshes the posting-time and sends it back to the top of the list, I don't see that as a major issue? It does that now anyway.
Well my point was really centred around the ability to add to the post to reflect any changes that either the post is taking, or perhaps to add additional debate in to it.
I don't understand the technology involved but would it perhaps not be possible to have, if you like, a "sub-box" which you could add on to the original post for this purpose, leaving the original post unchanged?
Definitely agree with all that: all I'm on about is being able to correct the text of your first post until someone replies...
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing