Thank you, Kathy, for your answer, and, you are correct that I was speaking hypothetically, and not in reference to your own posts. I should have made that more clear.
Thanks Laleo. ;)
I like your solutions insofar as how to resolve the problem, but I do have one question. You said that you would alert the forum moderator if the problem persists. I'm curious about what you would expect the moderator to do after he got the alert. In other words, I'm wondering if this new editing time limit is because of all the complaints. Maybe the problem didn't solve itself in its own time.
If you're saying what I think you are then perhaps there has been abuse reported prior and Paw thinks this a good opportunity for us to air our views now, as he did mention being glad it came up now for discussion. You could very well have something there. But to answer your question I guess I would expect the moderator to just have been informed there is someone being abusive. He/she may not opt to do anything but it would have been reported and there have been times in the past that Paw has asked why didn't anyone notify me of this. I'd give him/her the option of knowing and what they did with the information would be up to them.
Shell, it's a loop you get into. You can opt for add reply (new one) and it takes you back into the previous post of yours, provided you were the last poster. I've been caught in it a few times. It can be fun and annoying both.
I think posting while drunk is one of the biggest reasons AGAINST the edit function. If someone makes an foot out of themself while PWD, then they should have to read it the next morning. Maybe if they see what an foot they are when drunk, they my consider not drinking as much in the future.
And by the by I don't post drunk, so that's not gonna mess up my loop. Nor will it loop up my mess.
I didn't know I HAD a loop 'til this morning somewhere.
:blink:
Can ya'll explain this in psych terms, I'll surely understand it then. It edits FOR you, but only if noone else posts AFTER you. But if you post after yourself, it still edits the one you just posted and you don't have to edit the post even if you wanted to.
Can ya'll explain this in psych terms, I'll surely understand it then. It edits FOR you, but only if noone else posts AFTER you. But if you post after yourself, it still edits the one you just posted and you don't have to edit the post even if you wanted to.
I think posting while drunk is one of the biggest reasons AGAINST the edit function. If someone makes an foot out of themself while PWD, then they should have to read it the next morning. Maybe if they see what an foot they are when drunk, they my consider not drinking as much in the future.
Rick
But Rick. If they want to edit the next morning, it suggests they have read it the next morning, doesn't it? It suggests they aren't happy with it, doesn't it? Maybe that modicum of self-awareness you deign to prescribe exists already.
I think your post illustrates the "reformative" role some feel Greasespot should fill. Pawtucket said it wasn't part of the charter, by the way, and it's a good thing. We need to work out our own salvation, wouldn't you say? A bad post is a bad post, not the mark of Cain. Greasespot is neither reformatory, nor charm school. There are those who would have it otherwise. They are more comfortable with appearances than truth, in my opinion.
It is very important, I think, that those of you who feel posts should not be edited after two hours do NOT edit your posts after two hours. You'll feel like hypocrites if you do, you know? Those of us who feel we should edit after two hours, or two months, if we're so inclined, will respect your rights and never insist that you edit your posts, no matter how badly they are in need of it. (I can't promise not to rub it in, though.)
On drininkig...
I don't post while drinking because it's more fun to turn off the PC, grab the keys and go driving around the neighborhood. BUT, in the interest of safety, I do recommend a designated poster for anyone who wants to drink at Greasespot.
That's not to say I haven't posted whilst enjoying a nice Shiraz or Burgundy, or the occasional Sam (Adams). On those occasions, I fill my posts with mirth, irony and joy, although I'm just as likely to doze off before clicking the "post" button.
Whether or not surviving posts appear foolish, or make me look like an "foot," I'm grateful for the opportunity (meaning, the OPTION, my option) to reappraise them later, and to re-write them if warranted. Momentary lapses are hardly a good reason to stop drinking. They are a good reason to stop posting, if the rules have become so stringent. The lapses might indicate the need to drink more. That is not for you to say, or Greasespot policy to enforce. There is plenty of oversight already. Management walks a fine line between "law" and "grace." I appeal to management, if there is any question, err on the side of grace.
(This post has been edited about 27 times, by the way - it's not about "perfectionism," it's about enjoyment. It is a rare post for me that survives its first draft, or its fifth.)
I don't post while drinking because it's more fun to turn off the PC, grab the keys and go driving around the neighborhood. BUT, in the interest of safety, I do recommend a designated poster for anyone who wants to drink at Greasespot.
:D
I really see your point now. Most people, after posting while drunk as a skunk, two hours later, are still: drunk.
With 38 votes so far, we appear to be getting a representative cross-section. If it were an election, the result so far would be characterized as a "landslide."
Although I worded the choices with an obvious bias, I have encouraged opposing views and those voters seem comfortable making them known. Some of them are quite convincing.
(This post has been edited about 27 times, by the way - it's not about "perfectionism," it's about enjoyment. It is a rare post for me that survives its first draft, or its fifth.)
I considered hanging out in Nostalgia for two hours while I made edits to one of my posts but then thought I may appear crazy so opted to stop.
I really see your point now. Most people, after posting while drunk as a skunk, two hours later, are still: drunk.
Might as well not have an edit feature at all! :D
I'm not really talking about that extreme, H. In cases where the posts are so over the top, the moderators will generally "edit" them before their authors have the opportunity, because the posts will have been reported by the first reader to take offense. The offense may or may not be justified, of course. Drunken gibberish is not offensive in itself. (If coherence were the only criterion for posting, Garth would be in big trouble, and I don't think it's because he's drinking.)
so far, no edit tag - are they added after the fact, even with quick edit?
-- yes, it's been changed. the edit tag now shows with quick edit, but not immediately, and it isn't visble, then it is, then it isn't... not that it matters much, but someone pointed out that "quick edit" did not leave an "edited tag," and now it does. sort of.
it doesn't show after the edit until you go back to the forum and go back in again, or just refresh the screen.
It also shows if you just refresh the page after a quick edit.
At least I think it did yesterday. Here's a quick edit to check.
Yep, it doesn't show immediately after a quick edit but it does if you refresh the page.
That's two little quirks I've noticed (as have others). The other one is that if you try to do a new post immediately following your own previous post, it gets appended to the previous one. The edit thing is just a bit odd. The inability to make two consecutive separate posts is irritating.
I think posting while drunk is one of the biggest reasons AGAINST the edit function. If someone makes an foot out of themself while PWD, then they should have to read it the next morning. Maybe if they see what an foot they are when drunk, they my consider not drinking as much in the future.
Rick
But Rick. If they want to edit the next morning, it suggests they have read it the next morning, doesn't it? It suggests they aren't happy with it, doesn't it? Maybe that modicum of self-awareness you deign to prescribe exists already.
On drininkig...
I don't post while drinking because it's more fun to turn off the PC, grab the keys and go driving around the neighborhood. BUT, in the interest of safety, I do recommend a designated poster for anyone who wants to drink at Greasespot.
That's not to say I haven't posted whilst enjoying a nice Shiraz or Burgundy, or the occasional Sam (Adams). On those occasions, I fill my posts with mirth, irony and joy, although I'm just as likely to doze off before clicking the "post" button.
Whether or not surviving posts appear foolish, or make me look like an "foot," I'm grateful for the opportunity (meaning, the OPTION, my option) to reappraise them later, and to re-write them if warranted. Momentary lapses are hardly a good reason to stop drinking. They are a good reason to stop posting, if the rules have become so stringent. The lapses might indicate the need to drink more. That is not for you to say, or Greasespot policy to enforce. There is plenty of oversight already. Management walks a fine line between "law" and "grace." I appeal to management, if there is any question, err on the side of grace.
:D
I really see your point now. Most people, after posting while drunk as a skunk, two hours later, are still: drunk.
Might as well not have an edit feature at all! :D
I'm not really talking about that extreme, H. In cases where the posts are so over the top, the moderators will generally "edit" them before their authors have the opportunity, because the posts will have been reported by the first reader to take offense. The offense may or may not be justified, of course. Drunken gibberish is not offensive in itself. (If coherence were the only criterion for posting, Garth would be in big trouble, and I don't think it's because he's drinking.)
I didn't read that thread so can't comment but I've seen screwed up threads because folks deleted their post(s) leaving what looked like a bunch of lost people responding to things not there. So I agree completely in that, I do. I just feel we should be allowed the freedom and if we aren't mature enough to abide by it and have common courtesy then probably in time everyone we'll lose interest in engaging in conversation with us anymore. It will rather take care of itself I imagine.
When do we arrive at the point we say I'm responsible not the moderator for my behavior? Editing required by the moderator should fall under grace on his/her part. If we can't abide by the common courtesy law around here why should they abide by the grace to manage our bad behavior? And there is a huge difference between having a bad time and saying things we regret and repeated remarks to ones that love and care or wouldn't be there in the first place.
How is "grace" different from "the freedom to harass others"?
Laleo, that's a tad of my understanding but not really in full because I don't believe that particular example of mine is one of harassment but I did touch on grace a tad. More as it progresses because it is a good question.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
12
11
13
Popular Days
Oct 2
36
Oct 3
34
Oct 1
25
Sep 30
15
Top Posters In This Topic
ChattyKathy 34 posts
satori001 12 posts
Shellon 11 posts
dmiller 13 posts
Popular Days
Oct 2 2005
36 posts
Oct 3 2005
34 posts
Oct 1 2005
25 posts
Sep 30 2005
15 posts
ChattyKathy
:P Shell :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
There's a gremlin in the posting here. Seems when I've replied to a thread and want to add another one, it edits the previous post. :blink: :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Sushi, yup you found that strange place also eh? :o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
Just when I've believed I got some part of the site figured out?
Edits the previouse one? How does it know what part you want edited?
Lord lord.
:unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Shell, it's a loop you get into. You can opt for add reply (new one) and it takes you back into the previous post of yours, provided you were the last poster. I've been caught in it a few times. It can be fun and annoying both.
:blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
"Shell, it's a loop you get into."
Uh huh a loop, that's what my life needs. Ending up back where I started.
A loop.
So if I don't do 'add reply' what happens? I can't reply?
What does it edit? I'm fixin to click add reply, we'll see what happens as I loop around to where I was.
:unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
I think posting while drunk is one of the biggest reasons AGAINST the edit function. If someone makes an foot out of themself while PWD, then they should have to read it the next morning. Maybe if they see what an foot they are when drunk, they my consider not drinking as much in the future.
Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Rick, you messed up Shell's loop man. She will be lost.
Oh yeah, you were adding to the thread.
I'll leave now.
:unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
moony3424
Same thing happened to me. You have to wait for somebody to post after you, then post or else it will just edit the previous one. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
Clear as mud, twice as cloudy.
And by the by I don't post drunk, so that's not gonna mess up my loop. Nor will it loop up my mess.
I didn't know I HAD a loop 'til this morning somewhere.
:blink:
Can ya'll explain this in psych terms, I'll surely understand it then. It edits FOR you, but only if noone else posts AFTER you. But if you post after yourself, it still edits the one you just posted and you don't have to edit the post even if you wanted to.
Do I have it now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I'm late, be good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
moony3424
Sounds like you got it together!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
It's Shell's fault. :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
"Sounds like you got it together!!"
ummm ok yeah, sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
But Rick. If they want to edit the next morning, it suggests they have read it the next morning, doesn't it? It suggests they aren't happy with it, doesn't it? Maybe that modicum of self-awareness you deign to prescribe exists already.
I think your post illustrates the "reformative" role some feel Greasespot should fill. Pawtucket said it wasn't part of the charter, by the way, and it's a good thing. We need to work out our own salvation, wouldn't you say? A bad post is a bad post, not the mark of Cain. Greasespot is neither reformatory, nor charm school. There are those who would have it otherwise. They are more comfortable with appearances than truth, in my opinion.
It is very important, I think, that those of you who feel posts should not be edited after two hours do NOT edit your posts after two hours. You'll feel like hypocrites if you do, you know? Those of us who feel we should edit after two hours, or two months, if we're so inclined, will respect your rights and never insist that you edit your posts, no matter how badly they are in need of it. (I can't promise not to rub it in, though.)
On drininkig...
I don't post while drinking because it's more fun to turn off the PC, grab the keys and go driving around the neighborhood. BUT, in the interest of safety, I do recommend a designated poster for anyone who wants to drink at Greasespot.
That's not to say I haven't posted whilst enjoying a nice Shiraz or Burgundy, or the occasional Sam (Adams). On those occasions, I fill my posts with mirth, irony and joy, although I'm just as likely to doze off before clicking the "post" button.
Whether or not surviving posts appear foolish, or make me look like an "foot," I'm grateful for the opportunity (meaning, the OPTION, my option) to reappraise them later, and to re-write them if warranted. Momentary lapses are hardly a good reason to stop drinking. They are a good reason to stop posting, if the rules have become so stringent. The lapses might indicate the need to drink more. That is not for you to say, or Greasespot policy to enforce. There is plenty of oversight already. Management walks a fine line between "law" and "grace." I appeal to management, if there is any question, err on the side of grace.
(This post has been edited about 27 times, by the way - it's not about "perfectionism," it's about enjoyment. It is a rare post for me that survives its first draft, or its fifth.)
Edited by satori001Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
How is "grace" different from "the freedom to harass others"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
:D
I really see your point now. Most people, after posting while drunk as a skunk, two hours later, are still: drunk.
Might as well not have an edit feature at all! :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
With 38 votes so far, we appear to be getting a representative cross-section. If it were an election, the result so far would be characterized as a "landslide."
Although I worded the choices with an obvious bias, I have encouraged opposing views and those voters seem comfortable making them known. Some of them are quite convincing.
Even so...
Edited by satori001Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
You aren't alone dear. :blink:
I considered hanging out in Nostalgia for two hours while I made edits to one of my posts but then thought I may appear crazy so opted to stop.
:blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
I'm not really talking about that extreme, H. In cases where the posts are so over the top, the moderators will generally "edit" them before their authors have the opportunity, because the posts will have been reported by the first reader to take offense. The offense may or may not be justified, of course. Drunken gibberish is not offensive in itself. (If coherence were the only criterion for posting, Garth would be in big trouble, and I don't think it's because he's drinking.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I've noticed that too. Its kind of like, editing, without editing. And the original post does not indicate that it was "edited".
But it was "appended" perhaps..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
test
testing123
so far, no edit tag - are they added after the fact, even with quick edit?
-- yes, it's been changed. the edit tag now shows with quick edit, but not immediately, and it isn't visble, then it is, then it isn't... not that it matters much, but someone pointed out that "quick edit" did not leave an "edited tag," and now it does. sort of.
it doesn't show after the edit until you go back to the forum and go back in again, or just refresh the screen.
Edited by satori001Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
It also shows if you just refresh the page after a quick edit.
At least I think it did yesterday. Here's a quick edit to check.
Yep, it doesn't show immediately after a quick edit but it does if you refresh the page.
That's two little quirks I've noticed (as have others). The other one is that if you try to do a new post immediately following your own previous post, it gets appended to the previous one. The edit thing is just a bit odd. The inability to make two consecutive separate posts is irritating.
Edited by LGLink to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
When do we arrive at the point we say I'm responsible not the moderator for my behavior? Editing required by the moderator should fall under grace on his/her part. If we can't abide by the common courtesy law around here why should they abide by the grace to manage our bad behavior? And there is a huge difference between having a bad time and saying things we regret and repeated remarks to ones that love and care or wouldn't be there in the first place.
Laleo, that's a tad of my understanding but not really in full because I don't believe that particular example of mine is one of harassment but I did touch on grace a tad. More as it progresses because it is a good question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.