One thing...

Some keep stating a reason to allow editing is in case soemone realizes that they posted something that was wrong... If someone has already replied after the [wrong] post/reply, the best thing to do is quote yourself (wrong stuff), then address/correct it in a later post.

That doesn't help if you're trying to get a PTFTW.

That doesn't help if you're trying to get a PTFTW.

Ha! Totally forgot about the BET crew when I created the poll.

I guess we can now account for at least half of the "edit for ever" votes.

We're not a "crew", we're jerks. BET Jerks, try to get it right keep up.

This discussion is all well and good, but does nothing to address the issue of subsequent posters quoting other people's posts, thus preserving the original content.

If deletion of posts became commonplace, then I suspect we would see a rise in the number of users quoting just as a precautionary measure. This happens to some degree already, particularly of late.

Clearly, there are issues with the current model. I now feel that posts should be editable for 48 to 72 hours to allow the poster to correct errors, add content, delete his post etc. That should be ample time for those purposes. After that, the post should be considered part of the RC.com archive.

Curt

We're not a "crew", we're jerks. BET Jerks, try to get it right.

Exactly WTF would such a policy fix? How often can we really expect a user that posts a ton of content to suddenly delete it all? Once in a decade? RC.com doesn't even HAVE a user that posts a ton of content!

Perhaps it is the responsibility of people relying on context that would be provided by an erased post to, well, PROVIDE that context by QUOTING the person(s) to whom they're responding in the first place!

Good point. And yet, I'm still officially changing my position on this whole deal.

I think an exemption for Scummunity is a good idea. I would be in favor of editability remaining unchanged in campground and the soapbox.

Absolutely no editing. Posts quality will increase. A side benefit will be the end of the stupid quoting and re-quoting of the original posts or thread answers.

Users need to think twice before hitting the reply or post button.

Delete the campground, soap box etc. Moderate agressively to delete any non-climbing posts.

...Let us say it was curt that decided to blow away all of his posts, would the site miss his 2002 recommendation of a sealy posturpedic for a bouldering pad? No.

Quoted, just because.

But exactly the point. Let us say it was curt that decided to blow away all of his posts, would the site miss his 2002 recommendation of a sealy posturpedic for a bouldering pad? No.

This is a one off event No need to change the rules now. It won't bring the content back and won't encourage more to appear.

Removing the content of a post can make an entire thread meaningless or confusing and allowing a single user the ability to make other peoples posts obfuscated does not seem fair.

Dave

What? That may have been one of my better posts.

Curt

Not nearly as good as this one:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...i?post=240785#240785

Please don't delete that one.

I find it terribly ironic that moderators, of all people, would argue that posts can't be edited.

Hypocrites, the lot of you.

The poster OWNS HER POST. Its her intellectual material and until you start paying her for copyrights, its REMAINS HER PROPERTY.

You have no business telling her what she can and cannot do with her post, including editing.

(but you have no problem editing the posts of others, do ya)

DMT

Actually Dingus, mods no longer have the ability to edit a post. Haven't been able to for a couple of years. I think it's a good thing. The only thing we can do is delete the post entirely (not a really good option and is never used), recycle it, and now hide it. But NEVER can we edit it. It's not even possible.

Maybe allow the user to mark it as invalid but then just show an extra message at the beginning like this:

[drector marked this post as invalid on Aug-18-2010]

But show all of the content. "Invalid" seems to be a reasonable way to describe a post that a user no longer wishes to be viewed as truth, fact, or their current opinion. Things change and a person should at least be able to indicate that they changes their mind after-the-fact.

Maybe show the whole invalid post in strikeout text in the case of it being marked invalid.

Removing the content of a post can make an entire thread meaningless or confusing and allowing a single user the ability to make other peoples posts obfuscated does not seem fair.

Dave