Posted by Dinah on November 28, 2009, at 8:15:44
In reply to Re: editing posts after submission, posted by Dr. Bob on November 28, 2009, at 2:26:44
It's not just outright denial, Dr. Bob. It's the tacit denial of editing a post. Editing a post *is* denial. It's not retraction. Retraction is what they do in newspapers. But they don't go collect all the original newspapers and replace them. They can't. Words can't be unsaid.
If you haven't read the original fine. But if you had, and then the particulars of the post are changed - even if it's not a question of incivility - "reality" has changed. And if some people have read it, and others haven't, then different people have different realities. I thought Babble was the place where everything was transparent, and everyone's reality was as much the same as site rules could make it? Public PBC's and blocks, never removing a post, etc. If you wish to change that, maybe you could start with one of the other elements of transparency, like public PBC's that likely actually cause more distress than this.
It's not an issue in technical corrections. But it is an issue in anything else, especially civility, but anything else really. Once anyone has read the post, editing it tampers with the reader's sense of reality.
At another site, which does allow editing, I end up saving posts every time I read them, because I never know if they'll change afterward.
Maybe it's me. I have OCD, which has been known as the doubting disease. And I was raised in a home where reality was at issue. But surely many of us were raised in homes (or married into homes) where reality was an issue.
Having the original available is fine for deputies, but I don't think it's fair for only deputies to have the ability to see that.
What is the issue of having the original linkable? Why would anyone object to that?
If someone regrets what they posted, they could indicate that regret by withdrawing or changing what they said. Isn't that sufficient? Why is it so bad to have what they actually said still available? It seems a reasonable compromise to me.
Thank you for trying to understand. But maybe you could go a bit further and try to understand more fully.
Could you please explain to me
1) Why having the original available by link would be so awful.
2) Why it would improve on board relations to have people saying something then tacitly denying it after it's had a chance to be seen. Wouldn't that just make other posters more angry at the use of board rules to be uncivil on top of the incivility itself? Can you imagine in some of the exchanges where people already perceive that people are treading close to the line, if editing subsequently took place? Is my memory just longer than yours? I just totally don't understand in any way why this would increase board harmony. Could you give a few examples?
I'm guessing this isn't really open to debate or compromise, and all I'm doing is upsetting myself more. I've prepared a folder on my computer for all the saving I'm going to have to do. And I've even thought of a few fun games I could play. But I don't think it's ultimately in the board's best interests. As for me personally, all I can say is you can consider it the "therapist job stability and retirement provision" rule.
poster:Dinah
thread:660662
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20091103/msgs/927260.html