# Issue with editing people's comments...



## Asmor (May 8, 2007)

There is something that's bugged me about ENWorld for a long, long time. I speak of the moderators' ability-- and willingness-- to go in and edit someone else's post. At best it seems disrespectful, and at worst it seems disingenuous and quite easy to abuse.

I understand that the board has rules and expectations of its posters, and that we all agreed to a EULA or something similar when we joined, but just the same editing someone else's words just feels inherently wrong to me.

I honestly don't expect anyone to care about my complaint, and really I'm just venting, but in the infinitesimally off chance that someone does care, here's what I'd suggest: Just delete the post entirely, leaving a note that a post was there and has been deleted and why. Still serves the purpose of enforcing the board's rules, but it's in my mind far less morally ambiguous. I know that I personally would prefer something I posted deleted wholesale rather than have someone go in and "clean it up."


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 8, 2007)

As someone who recently got a post edited by a moderator, I'm fine with how the moderators have been handling it.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 8, 2007)

Hi Asmor,

The ability to go and edit any post is something that could be easy to abuse, and we are mindful of that. The decision of whether to edit or delete is one that is carefully considered. 

Speaking for myself, if someone has a good post which they spoil with one insult, I would rather edit or remove the insult and leave the good part of the post rather than summarily delete the whole thing and throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

In addition there is sometimes a benefit from justice 'being seen to be done' - where editing a nasty post and leaving a warning message makes it clear that certain behaviour has not been condoned. Deleted posts don't always serve this point, as the fact that they have been deleted is invisible to regular users - it just isn't there any more.

When we do edit things, we would normally make it clear that it is an edit that we have made, and the reason for that edit - you won't see us making invisible edits to peoples work for instance (which would be disingenuous). We do aim to be pretty upfront about things whenever we can (and if it appears that we are not, it is because we are dealing with issues by email behind the scenes).

Cheers


----------



## jonesy (May 8, 2007)

It's not unique to Enworld in any way. Actually right now I can't think of a single board where mods couldn't and wouldn't do that when the situation so warranted.

I've got no problem with it. Especially here where the moderators are excellent.

I don't think that deleting the offending post really works. An edited post is a clear signal to everyone, especially the poster himself.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 8, 2007)

Like here? - http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=195666


----------



## diaglo (May 8, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Like here? - http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=195666




huh?


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> huh?




Mark is pointing out a recent example where a mod (me) chose to not edit something as small as a thread title, but instead suggested to the OP that they do it themselves.

Generally speaking, if there's no board-rules issue, I don't edit people's writing.  It would be downright rude.  Even if the grammar is so bad it makes my eyes ache


----------



## Henry (May 8, 2007)

I usually choose not to delete all of the post if there's one part where someone falls off the deep end in one spot. A post which says something like, _"This company has not gotten my money for six months and they certainly won't get it now. They can TAKE THIS PRODUCT AND SHOVE IT UP THEIR **** and THEN **** it into a **** and RAM IT ******"_ then I'll chop it after the _"...get it now."_ part and send out the warning/ban/whatever's warranted. We never, if avoidable, change the intent of the post, we'll just chop it off or delete it entirely.


----------



## Pbartender (May 8, 2007)

If you want to see an example of this process in action, check out the most recent Order of the Stick thread...

Daniel's explanation: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=195766&p=3506535
Edited post: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=195766&p=3506483
Edited post: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=195766&p=3506487


----------



## Mark CMG (May 8, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> It would be downright rude.





Naw.  In that case, just a matter of practicality (certainly not of grammar or board-rules in that particular case).  With all of the other problems that arise from Gencon registration, any little thing anyone can do to avoid problems or confusion is just common sense and better to be done quickly.


----------



## Asmor (May 8, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> If you want to see an example of this process in action, check out the most recent Order of the Stick thread...
> 
> Daniel's explanation: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=195766&p=3506535
> Edited post: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=195766&p=3506483
> Edited post: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=195766&p=3506487




That's actually specifically triggered this post... Not the first time I've felt this, I feel it every time I see an edited post, just decided to say something this time.

There's no question that the mods here have, in my experience at least, shown great discretion in their usage of their powers, but all the same it makes me very uncomfortable whenever I see it. If nothing else, these mods may be great, but what about the new mods a couple years down the line, or when Morrus has to stop running the site, etc...

It's kind of the same argument for not giving your government too much power... You might love and trust the hell out of the guys in power now, but who knows what's coming after?


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 8, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> That's actually specifically triggered this post... Not the first time I've felt this, I feel it every time I see an edited post, just decided to say something this time.



And that specifically triggered my post too. 

I'm glad the mod took the initiative to edit the post. I didn't realize there was a problem with my post, and rather than have possible legality issues and wait for me to come back around (neither of us could guarantee when that would've happened), he not only fixed the problem but made it clear not to do it in the future.

And now that I know, I won't. 

If the post were simply deleted, the issue would be more likely to come up again.


----------



## Morrus (May 8, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> It's kind of the same argument for not giving your government too much power... You might love and trust the hell out of the guys in power now, but who knows what's coming after?




Fortunately, we're not a government, and nobody's actually likely to be harmed no matter what buttons we press on the site!

The whole issue isn't an "EN World" issue, it's a "how messageboards work" issue - it's the same on every one of the hundreds upon thousands of messageboards on these here intraweb.

What we do is _remove _ offending material - material which the poster has agreed not to post.  They didn't have permission to post that material in the first place (whether it be an insult, obscenity, politcs, or what-have-you), so it shouldn't _be_ there.

What we don't do is _rewrite_ anything.

I guess feeling that it's disrespectful is a valid opinion; but it's no less direspectful than deliberately posting something prohibited in the first place.  Of course, it's not alwsy deliberate - some people do it by accident, which is cool (these things happen), but that doesn't mean that the text should remain there.


----------



## jaerdaph (May 8, 2007)

"This post has been modified to fit your screen."


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> If nothing else, these mods may be great, but what about the new mods a couple years down the line, or when Morrus has to stop running the site, etc...




New mods are carefully considered, and operate under oversight of Morrus and the other mods - it isn't like they set us loose without watching what we do.  So, there's considerable enforcement of continuity of practice.  If a new mod were to abuse his powers, he'd get ousted by Morrus right quick.  

And, if Morrus handed the site off to someone else, any rules Morrus had set up for us mods could go out the window anyway, and would thus be useless as a guarantee for the case.


----------



## jaerdaph (May 8, 2007)

If you guys need a new mod please consider me! You can let me know later tonight - I get back from court-mandated anger management and sensitivity training class at 8 PM.


----------



## LightPhoenix (May 9, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> New mods are carefully considered, and operate under oversight of Morrus and the other mods - it isn't like they set us loose without watching what we do.  So, there's considerable enforcement of continuity of practice.  If a new mod were to abuse his powers, he'd get ousted by Morrus right quick.




Man, you just ruined my dream of dropping out of school and becoming an ENWorld mod running amok with the banhammer and a forty of malt liquor.


----------



## Umbran (May 9, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Man, you just ruined my dream of dropping out of school and becoming an ENWorld mod running amok with the banhammer and a forty of malt liquor.




We already have Rel for that.  

Except he quit drinking alcohol and now stays drunk on pure power.  Plus he's dead sexy.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (May 9, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> We already have Rel for that.




So, how long until that post get's edited by Rel?   

Back on topic, I also agree with mods deleting or chopping but not rewording.  As has been stated earlier ... a post may contain good info and only one part that is spoiling the rest.  Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

To the OP, don't think of editing as necessarily a bad thing.  It isn't always because people intentionally stepped out of line.  Sometimes, like the example above, the mods are there to protect people who don't know any better.  [No offense indended, Jdvn1]  It's true what they say ... "The mods protect the fools and the innocent."

Sometimes posters do stuff wrong innocently.  Piratecat stepped in and corrected me once, and I wasn't aware that I was doing anything wrong.  Now that I know, I haven't done it again.  That's the innocent part.  Sometimes people's posts deserve to get edited because their having a "bad-poster" moment.  That's the fools part.  That's the mods take out modding stick part. 

So long as I see the mods in the light of "protecting the fools and the innocent" and keeping the site functioning like a well-oiled machine, I give them the props they deserve.

And yes, I expect to see one of the various mods pick up my "The mods protect the fools and the innocent" quote, get a swelled head, and insert it into a sig somewhere.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 9, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> And yes, I expect to see one of the various mods pick up my "The mods protect the fools and the innocent" quote, get a swelled head, and insert it into a sig somewhere.




Tempting, sooooo tempting 

Almost as tempting as wishing that nifty Piratecat a spiffy 40th birthday!


----------



## diaglo (May 9, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Man, you just ruined my dream of dropping out of school and becoming an ENWorld mod running amok with the banhammer and a forty of malt liquor.



i'm enjoying my forty without mod powers.


----------



## Rel (May 9, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> So, how long until that post get's edited by Rel?



I would never engage in such activities unless it was *absolutely* convenient. After all, I'm nowhere near as cool as Piratecat, and HE wouldn't do it! Because he's uber-cool and eats corndogs.

Sighhhh... Piratecat's so dreamy.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (May 10, 2007)

Rel said:
			
		

> I would never engage in such activities unless it was *absolutely* convenient.




So, that would be exactly one minute les than 19 hours, I see.

I think that qualifies as convenient.  Carry on! 

The question is ... what did Piratecate edit (*cough* add *cough) to your original post?


----------



## Dog Moon (May 10, 2007)

Actually, I've frequently found the editing to be quite humerous, like when someone posts *swear*ing blah blah *swear* and it's changed to like 'You're a weird mushroom' or something else totally odd like that.  Makes me laugh.

Also, I have no problems with the editing and actually am glad that it is done.  It simplifies the situation and kinda gives a warning that they are watchful.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 10, 2007)

Except, quite often, one has no idea what the heck happened, or why.

I had multiple posts of mine edited out today after _I_ was the one reporting a thread and was told to stay out of the thread after that. I didn't receive an e-mail or any indication in the thread how I did something wrong.

Editing a comment in a vacuum doesn't prevent problems in the future, since those guilty -- apparently I did something bad, but have no clue what -- will go off to repeat their same transgressions in the future unless told what those transgressions actually were.

I respect the difficulty of the job and how overwhelming it can be, but sometimes, the quick edits ultimately do more harm than good.


----------



## hong (May 10, 2007)

What would be cool is if you could have an argument with a mod, right in the post itself. It would be like Wikipedia's discussion pages.

No, that wouldn't be cool at all. In fact, it's a bad idea that would just stir up more trouble. Go back to your jokes about masturbation.
You haven't even seen Wikipedia's discussion pages at all, have you? Go look at them before talking about jokes about masturbation.
Yes I have, actually. We're not allowing it, full stop.
Well, if you're going to be all fascist about it, fair enough.
I'm not being fascist, you moron.
Don't call me a moron, you nazi.
Call me a nazi again and I'll ban you, .
Kiss my ass, .​Wait, what am I thinking? Today is Piratecat's 40th birthday! I should stop typing and start raining felicitations down on him from on high. Cause Rel is right -- Piratecat IS dreamy!
It's not your birthday anymore, buccaneering feline. Time to come down from that caffeine high.
God damn you Pelorinho, stay out of my post.​


----------



## Piratecat (May 10, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I had multiple posts of mine edited out today after _I_ was the one reporting a thread and was told to stay out of the thread after that. I didn't receive an e-mail or any indication in the thread how I did something wrong.



If a post gets removed but you see no warning, you probably didn't do something wrong. Here's the scenario, which I believe applies to you:

Poster 1: "You all suck! I can't believe a bunch of drooling mouthbreathers like your parents could ever breed!"

Poster 2: "You're acting like a dick."

Moderator: Deletes Poster 1's post. Sees that poster 2's rebuttal is no longer necessary and has no other info in it other than justifiable telling poster 1 to stop being a dick. Removes it as a result.

That being said, we'll note this and keep it in mind for how we handle things in the future. There's no playbook that says how we handle things right now is the perfect way.

What the heck, no one loves me, so I'll wish myself a happy 40th birthday.  Happy 40th birthday, me!


----------



## Kastil (May 10, 2007)

Rel said:
			
		

> I would never engage in such activities unless it was *absolutely* convenient. After all, I'm nowhere near as cool as Piratecat, and HE wouldn't do it! Because he's uber-cool and eats corndogs.
> 
> Sighhhh... Piratecat's so dreamy.



Rel.... is this what they refer to stalker cheating?  I'd be more disappointed in you if your post wasn't so damn true!.


----------



## Rel (May 10, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I had multiple posts of mine edited out today after _I_ was the one reporting a thread and was told to stay out of the thread after that. I didn't receive an e-mail or any indication in the thread how I did something wrong.




It's pretty much like Piratecat describes with the addition that you had quoted the bad post I'd just deleted.  So if I left your comment at the bottom of his quoted post then they would have made no sense.

The reason why I asked you to stay out of the thread is that you kept going after the offending poster even after you'd reported it to the mods.  If you report a post then let the mods handle it and just ignore the person who is irritating you.  Don't continue responding to them because it's only going to fan the flames and keep the thread headed in a negative direction.


----------



## Rel (May 10, 2007)

Kastil said:
			
		

> Rel.... is this what they refer to stalker cheating?  I'd be more disappointed in you if your post wasn't so damn true!.




IamnotatCMandcan'trespondtoKastillikeIwantIamalumberjackandIamokayIamnotatCMandcan'trespondtoKastillikeIwantIamnotatCMandcan'trespondtoKastillikeIwantIshouldsendPiratecatabirthdaypresentIamnotatCMandcan'trespondtoKastillikeIwant...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 10, 2007)

OK, understood.

And just say no to Wikiwars.


----------



## Bad Paper (May 14, 2007)

Morrus said:
			
		

> What we don't do is _rewrite_ anything.



I can think of one time recently that Hypersmurf rewrote something of mine.

I get moderated all the time, because I'm a dickhead, and each time it happens I am impressed with the mods' restraint.  I used to run a BBS, and I know how hard it is to do this well.

For the record, I disagree with *Asmor*.  1) The mods show impressive tact, and 2) prompting the poster to change his post assumes that the poster will log on again anytime in the next week.  I frequently go days or weeks between logging on here.  Keeping the board running smoothly and diplomatically is the mods' job, man; that's why we keep them drunk with power.  Asking users to come back and change their posts opens the door to intense passive aggressive behavior.  This I _know_.

on sub-topic: today is _my_ birthday, so there!  I even got my birthday email!


----------



## Piratecat (May 15, 2007)

Happy birthday.  


(EDIT BY REL - It took every fiber of restraint that I possess not to change that to "Happy birthday, dickhead. "  It's almost like I'm becoming a better person.)


----------



## hong (May 15, 2007)

Happy birthday. 

EDIT BY HONG: Ditto


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 15, 2007)

Bad Paper said:
			
		

> that's why we keep them drunk with power




Hic!


----------



## Pielorinho (May 15, 2007)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> If you want to see an example of this process in action, check out the most recent Order of the Stick thread...
> 
> Daniel's explanation: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=195766&p=3506535
> Edited post: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=195766&p=3506483
> Edited post: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=195766&p=3506487



You wanna know what takes real restraint, is not editing this post so that the first link goes to my explanation of the problem instead of to a completely different post in the thread .  See, we can be restrained!

(Oh, and a belated happy birthday to Bad Paper and to the Dreamy Piratecat!)

Daniel


----------



## Pbartender (May 15, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> You wanna know what takes real restraint, is not editing this post so that the first link goes to my explanation of the problem instead of to a completely different post in the thread .  See, we can be restrained!




It goes to the right post when I click on it.

Well...  it goes to the post above the linked post, which is the right post.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 15, 2007)

For me it goes to post 44, not post 43.  Weird.

Daniel


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 15, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> For me it goes to post 44, not post 43.  Weird.
> 
> Daniel



 Pbartender might be running a higher screen resolution so he sees more.  Without scrolling up or down, I only see posts 44 and 45 on my screen.


----------



## Pielorinho (May 16, 2007)

Ah, that could be.

I just threw in another edit of a post; free virtual noogie to whoever finds it first!

Daniel


----------



## hong (May 16, 2007)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Ah, that could be.
> 
> I just threw in another edit of a post; free virtual noogie to whoever finds it first!
> 
> Daniel



I saw that.


----------



## Pbartender (May 16, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Pbartender might be running a higher screen resolution so he sees more.  Without scrolling up or down, I only see posts 44 and 45 on my screen.




No, I think it's an oddity of the way by browser's displaying the page...

When I follow the link (to post 44), I see the very top line of post 44 at the very bottom of my browser window and a couple of posts immediately above it (post 43 and part of post 42).

As opposed to having the link's target post display at the top of the page.


----------

