Editing old posts prohibited

[Dave]

I appreciate you're saying that editing your post isn't a given right, but I must say that suddenly having it taken away will make me consider how I post in the future. I'm rather haphazard when posting, and usually like to add to what I've said after I've said it. Now I can't do that and to make the extra points I'd like to, I have to either change the entire way I approach posting to the forums, or break a forum rule and double post.

If people want to be childish and run away with their ball, let them - there's no point harming the rest of the community for it. Always thought OzTrans was fairly level-headed and I don't know the situation behind the whole affair, but come on haha. Same as other artists and coders who have had a big paddy.

Leaves a nasty taste in the mouth this, I would hope the community wouldn't get arsy about it.

Then again, for the first time in years I agree with Purno - not sure why Leanden feels he can group himself with OzTrans and SAC, as their work is vastly superior and if I'm going to HAVE to listen to a prima donna b**** (this forum swear filter is ridiculous - this isn't a swear word ffs!) about the attitude on the forums, then I want them to be good at what they do.

Now, where's that can of deodorant. I have flames to fan.

EDIT: I've actually edited this post twice. So what do I know haha.

[ChillCore]

I agree with Purno's suggestion (assuming such a thing is possible using the forum software) about being able to edit the first 5 posts of a release thread, etc.

Glad to see you agree with me about something I never suggested

Oops, it was Chillcore's sugestion

Note that I will leave my post the way it was as I usually do in these situations. Even though I could have edited it to be correct, however, that would have made Purno's post meaningless, and it would be disrespectful of me to try to hide an honest mistake.

I usually correct the info but I also add an "EDIT:I changed that into this" comment to my post to notify the people reading the topic at a later date that something has been modified. Sometimes I leave the incorrect info in place and just add the "EDIT:" line.
It really depends from situation to situation. Either way the honest mistake made is not hidden.
By disrespectful behaviour I meant removing the entire post rendering what follows without context, not the act of correcting info.

Of course. I finally read more of the topic and revert us back to the start...

Not wanting to be mean or anything but you really should read topics before replying to them.

[Yexo]

I appreciate you're saying that editing your post isn't a given right, but I must say that suddenly having it taken away will make me consider how I post in the future. I'm rather haphazard when posting, and usually like to add to what I've said after I've said it.

Even 7 days after you created the post?

Now I can't do that and to make the extra points I'd like to, I have to either change the entire way I approach posting to the forums, or break a forum rule and double post.

If you have new content to add after 7 days a double post is in my opinion fine. People would miss the information if you only edit your last post.

[Dave]

I appreciate you're saying that editing your post isn't a given right, but I must say that suddenly having it taken away will make me consider how I post in the future. I'm rather haphazard when posting, and usually like to add to what I've said after I've said it.

Even 7 days after you created the post?

Now I can't do that and to make the extra points I'd like to, I have to either change the entire way I approach posting to the forums, or break a forum rule and double post.

If you have new content to add after 7 days a double post is in my opinion fine. People would miss the information if you only edit your last post.

Maybe I've misinterpreted the new system then...

Disregard the above. I might even remove it by edit!?!?

[PaulC]

I think it would be unfortunate to let the actions of a few people ruin things for everyone else. And I also think it's important to avoid making a knee-jerk reaction to recent events. There's no denying that the new "7 day" rule makes it very difficult for people to update and maintain their release topics, and I hope this will be given due consideration before any final decisions are made.

My suggestion would be to continue allowing edits, but have edits to posts more than 7 days old vetted by a moderator before they become visible. I don't see this creating much of a workload (though anyone feel free to prove me wrong with some actual data), but should it be necessary to have a few extra mods then I'm sure there are many people who are capable and willing.

I also like Level Crossing's idea of limiting the number of edits a person can make in one day.

However, I suppose I would like to encourage, if possible, an atmosphere where members don't feel the need to go and remove all their posts and attachments, as we've seen recently.

If that's the case then I think you also need to look at the reasons for OzTrans leaving these forums. I don't see how you'll be able to "encourage" such an enviroment if you're already enforcing it...

[Hyronymus]

My suggestion would be to continue allowing edits, but have edits to posts more than 7 days old vetted by a moderator before they become visible. I don't see this creating much of a workload (though anyone feel free to prove me wrong with some actual data), but should it be necessary to have a few extra mods then I'm sure there are many people who are capable and willing.

But why would someone want to edit their post after 7 days, except from release changes?

[PaulC]

Except from release changes? I'm not suggesting that anyone would. But that's exactly why some of us need to edit our old posts, and it's not strictly limited to the "Release" forum, or to NewGRFs. It's not something you can really attach a time limit to, and it doesn't just apply to the first post of a topic, or any other arbitrary number of posts...

If this is just a fairly isolated incident though, and the vast majority of users are in fact behaving responsibly and not abusing their editing priviledges, then I don't really see why such punitive measures would be necessary.

[Purno]

Then again, for the first time in years I agree with Purno

Aw... this is what makes this community so awesome. All those silly disagreements we had, they don't really matter.
*group hug*

If people want to be childish and run away with their ball, let them - there's no point harming the rest of the community for it. Always thought OzTrans was fairly level-headed and I don't know the situation behind the whole affair, but come on haha. Same as other artists and coders who have had a big paddy.

I fear I may have to agree with you too (something strange is happening today), it feels odd for the whole community to be punished by such a rule just because a few out of thousands of members decides to be childish. (Because no matter what happened before, editing out all your post *is* childish).

My suggestion would be to continue allowing edits, but have edits to posts more than 7 days old vetted by a moderator before they become visible. I don't see this creating much of a workload (though anyone feel free to prove me wrong with some actual data), but should it be necessary to have a few extra mods then I'm sure there are many people who are capable and willing.

Can't we just hit the report button if we want a post edited?

[PaulC]

Can't we just hit the report button if we want a post edited?

Well, currently anyone can report any post, so whether you're reporting someone else's post or I'm reporting my own post the process is the same, so it would need some kind of a change I think. But yes, that's more or less how I see such a system working.

[MuHcOw]

First.. I haven't read the entire thread - yet.. Still working on it though.

Second.. Not allowing people to edit their own posts is a bad idea. If people want to delete their own post - Just let them..
Yes, a lot of history may be lost - But if a person want to act THAT childish...

Personally I needed to edit one of my posts today, but I couldn't. Kind of annoying.


Kind regards

[JamieLei]

Just to get my democratic voice out there and speak for a silent chunk,

Regarding the first post release, I think it's IMMENSELY important that it can be edited. I'm someone who gets back into OTTD in short bursts about once or twice a year (I ban myself from playing at uni), and trawling through threads looking for a patch or binary is both confusing and boring. To be able to take in 6 months of changes in one go is just impossible without there being an updated first post. I'm thinking of ChillPP here especially which although the binaries are no longer on the forums, important info is in the first post. It's not the beginning of a conversation, it's basically a homepage.

Many of these patches or graphics don't have another web presence. This rule basically forces them off the forums onto their own space.

But why would someone want to edit their post after 7 days, except from release changes?

I can think of plenty of reasons. Life situations may change. You might not want certain information to be freely available. For example, it's rather easy to find photos of certain people in the "photo of yourself" thread, and they might no longer want those there. By denying that, it would be the equivalent of Facebook saying, "Oh, all your photos were once freely available, you can't make them private any more because they're archived on public space".

I fully believe that anything that we post here is in our control, and we should be able to change or take off years later. Whilst I understand Owen's concerns, I think the moderator-reviewed edits is the most appropriate solution for this, so that the mods are aware of why historical info is being changed and to ensure that placeholder text is put in where info is removed.

[Alberth]

I fully believe that anything that we post here is in our control

Sorry to burst your bubble, but nothing you posted at the Internet is in your control. People make copies / backups, and link and steal everything (ever used google search, using their cache?)

Sure you can take something off a website, but that does not mean it is gone by a long shot.


I know it's a scary thought, but EVERYTHING you posted somewhen is public information, and you cannot stop it.
Being able to edit something away from this forum and thinking you removed it, is just fooling yourself.

[FooBar]

For example, it's rather easy to find photos of certain people in the "photo of yourself" thread, and they might no longer want those there.

Attachments are excluded from the 7 day limit. They can always be removed via the UCP.
And in case of textual content it's always possible to contact a moderator.

Many of these patches or graphics don't have another web presence. This rule basically forces them off the forums onto their own space.

True, but the tt-wiki offers just that. Creating a page for a patch or graphics set there is very easy. Plus the history is kept between edits. Simply put some generic information on the post with a link to a wiki page where more detailed information can be found. That's also easier when more people work on one set: on the wiki they can all edit the "first post".

[Whopper]

Although I do understand the decission, ... I really do dislike the effect of it. In general I think it's quite a bummer for people that want to use the forum as a platform for releasing their custom content.

I used to edit my first post a lot when releasing new small updates or when I want to expand the story-telling part of my custom content.

True, but the tt-wiki offers just that. Creating a page for a patch or graphics set there is very easy. Plus the history is kept between edits. Simply put some generic information on the post with a link to a wiki page where more detailed information can be found. That's also easier when more people work on one set: on the wiki they can all edit the "first post".

A very important motivation for releasing custom made content (mods, new graphics, maps etc.) is the feedback from the community.
The Wiki does not really offer this in the same way as the forum. (yes you can add a reaction, but people hardly use this function)

How I see it: the first post is where you want to interest your visitor, it's like your shop window where you want to persuede someone to enter your shop (in our case read further or download the content and perhaps post a reply). That's why you want to keep this post updated and as interesting as possible. A link to the wiki is like blackening your shop window and add a note 'Interested in what we do? check out our shop window in the back-alley around the next corner'. Sure some people will be interested but you loose a large part of your visitors.

Also ... using the Wiki might not really be a structural solution to the problem, you just move the problem to another platform. If the Wiki becomes the next best place to post your content, then people that want to hurt the community can still erase their contributions on the wiki.

Is it perhaps possible to make an exception for the first post?

[FooBar]

A very important motivation for releasing custom made content (mods, new graphics, maps etc.) is the feedback from the community.
The Wiki does not really offer this in the same way as the forum.

Very true, so you need to combine both. A topic linking to the wiki page for more information. And the wiki page linking to the topic for the discussion part.

If the Wiki becomes the next best place to post your content, then people that want to hurt the community can still erase their contributions on the wiki.

No, wiki history is unerasable. If someone removes the content from a page, someone else can just as easy revert it back to the previous version.

But I have to agree, keeping both discussion and release in one place has my preference as well. However I do think the wiki is a suitable alternative, a "next best thing" if you will.

[orudge]

Is it perhaps possible to make an exception for the first post?

That is my intention, don't worry - I just need to make the appropriate changes to phpBB, which I'll need to investigate. I've been a bit ill the past couple of days unfortunately (and still am now), so I've not really been on the computer.

[Voyager One]

My penny...

7 day limit

This is fine, attachments excluded as suggested. Some may consider them their property but that's another story.

I have to point out something else to consider. Sometimes, I (and we can assume more people here) have to post some things in sequence (i.e. graphics files). I want to avoid being considered a spammer and I add new things into the previous post as much as it goes in.
Now, completely prohibiting editing would mean no adding files/comments -> subsequent posting -> "spamming" -> getting warned by mods and banned? I wouldn't really like that to happen.

[Transportman]

My penny...

7 day limit

This is fine, attachments excluded as suggested. Some may consider them their property but that's another story.

I have to point out something else to consider. Sometimes, I (and we can assume more people here) have to post some things in sequence (i.e. graphics files). I want to avoid being considered a spammer and I add new things into the previous post as much as it goes in.
Now, completely prohibiting editing would mean no adding files/comments -> subsequent posting -> "spamming" -> getting warned by mods and banned? I wouldn't really like that to happen.

How often do you need to do that outside the 7 day limit? If you are still editing your post after 7 days it must be a very special post if it is not a release/development post or something like that.

[Voyager One]

That's why I said:

completely prohibiting editing

7-day period is more than enough. Also, a kind of instruction could be made - "for special situations contact mods - they can handle other things".

[Voyager One]

Let me demonstrate something with "no editing at all".

This is a doublepost.

I'm breaking the following rule.

The Transport Tycoon Forums: Official Rules
Revision 2.3.1, 12th April 2012

1. Forum Rules

c. Double-posts are not allowed. We realise that these are often accidental. Double-posts will be removed by a moderator or administrator.