Edit Time Limit

You mean to impose sanctions on those who go beyond the boundaries?

Well I can't really speak for Martin, but I understood him to mean 'sanction those that edit in such a way as to manipulate the sense of threads'.

As in, impose sanctions on rather than 'sanction' in the sense of 'officially permitting' something.

So, 'go beyond the boundaries' of decent forum behaviour, certainly.

Yes. I did mean that John.
And thanks Chris, for reading my mind correctly.

Martin.

As regards the will to sanction then, that's really a different issue and already exists.

If you're unaware of it, then that's good, isn't it?

Well I'm not unaware of it...

It is indeed. But I don't agree being it a different issue. I see it as a part of the solution. Think of it as a Football game. Yellow cards, Red cards,.....and finally suspension from the game and possible some more games to come.

Martin.

Hardly ever necessary, but all has always been in hand regarding that, which is why I say it's not really part of the question I posed at the beginning of this thread.

The point, as I see it, is this:

If there are people who manipulate the sense of threads by cunningly editing their posts after others have replied, then that is a bad thing for the community here.

The question then arises:

How best to deal with people that do that.

You can stop that particular offence, and that one only, by stopping everyone from editing after some minutes.

This punishes all the people that aren't abusing the forum as well, and leaves the bad people to cause other kinds of trouble.

Or, a little more difficult to implement, I admit, you can take action against what must be a tiny minority.

This leaves all those not causing trouble with their freedoms, and gets rid of the bad people.

I know which solution I prefer. What I don't yet understand, is why this logic isn't compelling in all quarters.

Well........A general reminder posted in the "rules of engagement" could warn of possible Troll's to stretch the "limits of what is acceptable" to much.

In the last year I saw several threads being closed, to prevent to much flames.
But I never saw ( or noticed) examples where people were issued a warning or worse.
Believe me: I rather never see this happening. I consider it as a shame to all of us, if it needs to be done.

I guess you know my opinion by now. But you know what they say about opinions.
They are just like ***holes. Everybody has got one.
So I stop commenting in this thread, and hope wise decisions may follow.

Martin.

May I ask why you think doing this punishes those who don't want to abuse the system. Could it be that it protects them from having their meaning distorted or hijacked?

What I am curious about is whether or not unlimited editing is actually something that a lot of people want to do or is it not? If hardly anyone really wants this ability then limiting it is hardly a punishment is it?

I suppose looking at the messages posted in general, it's also true that very, very few of them are actually marked as edited. :

Well, in the sense that it removes a freedom, based on someone else's crime. I think it's better to remove the freedoms of the criminal, than of the victim.

With respect, protection is often the justification for the removal of freedoms. Often it doesn't achieve the protection, and only results in a less free environment.

Well quite a few people objected to the change when the forum switched over. The majority, in fact, of those that commented at all.

Not only that, but the way it was before, the 'edited by' message only appeared at all, if a post was edited after someone else had replied.

This was far better, IMO, since edits before any reply are of no consequence. Now, a safeguard has been removed, in that no one can tell (other than by inspecting the dates which takes a lot more effort) whether the post has been edited since the reply.

Most of mine are. But for totally innocent purposes.

G

Thanks for that.

I'd really like to hear some opinions from other members as well. Even those who don't find it an issue as well as those who do.

After that, we'll see what we have and what conclusions can be drawn.

John, I know you mean well and I don't question your motives. This line of argument, though, is a slippery slope, I think.

You have the right to go out in the public and proclaim your opinion in free speech. Hardly anyone is making use of this right (with the odd exception, of course). So taking away this right would in general be of no consequence to most people, would it?
See where I'm coming from?

Goes without saying that this a bit of liking apples with pears.

Prieni

Edit: (not only because I can ) Chris was typing his post at the same time, apparently. He was, of course, more apt in conveying what I also wanted to express...

Interesting, Prieni, but I think there's plenty of free speech around here isn't there?

I offer this slightly "tongue in cheek" but there are some very nice bits of film of politicians saying things with utter sincerity, only to say the opposite when the situation makes it more convenient for them to do so.

Now what would happen if said politician (no names!) could go back and rewrite the piece of film? Or should we allow him that freedom?

George, your innocence is beyond doubt!