Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: editing posts after submission

Posted by Dr. Bob on November 29, 2009, at 0:23:38

In reply to Re: editing posts after submission » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 28, 2009, at 9:43:09

> It's not just outright denial, Dr. Bob. It's the tacit denial of editing a post. Editing a post *is* denial.
>
> 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?
>
> 1) Why having the original available by link would be so awful.
>
> 2) 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.

> So if I'm to understand you, no one would receive any admin action no matter what they posted as long as they revised it within twentyfour hours no matter how many people read the post.
>
> Would it be frozen for editing if someone replied? It would then at least be a game of chicken, since posters would always run the risk of having the first person to read it reply.
>
> If I understand correctly again, denying you wrote something would be uncivil. But since pointing out that someone said something would also be uncivil, that wouldn't really be an issue. No one would have to deny it.
>
> If I quote the original post in my reply, including the incivility so that people would know what I was replying to, would that be uncivil?
>
> How could a poster civilly point out that the original said something very different. Or offer to make the original available by email.
>
> Does this mean that this is a done deal, something you have already decided to do, and nothing we say will influence you to change course, or at least to compromise?

I don't see revising as denying. Revise: 1 a : to look over again in order to correct or improve <revise a manuscript>. Deny: 1 : to declare untrue <deny an allegation>.

I think we're both in favor of allowing revisions and only differ on deleting the original. The advantage of deleting the original is that it might avoid, or at least lessen, hurt feelings. The example I gave before was changing:

> You're offensive!

to:

> I feel offended!

The latter is an I-statement, so hopefully it would avoid bad feelings if the other poster hasn't seen the original and lessen them if they have.

My philosophy already is to accept apologies, including retractions. And as you said yourself, revising could be a face saving alternative to an explicit apology and an implicit acknowledgement that what was originally posted oughtn't to have been. But the poster might not necessarily have the full 24 hours (or however long) to revise because (1) their post might be replied to and (2) administrative action might be taken sooner.

Yes, a post would be "frozen" if someone replied. Repeating something uncivil by quoting it already is considered uncivil. A poster could civilly point out that the original was very different by saying:

> The original was very different.

or even:

> The original was very different, and I felt very offended!

If someone revised something, I don't think I'd consider it sensitive to their feelings to post an offer to make the original available.

Yes, deleting the original could change someone's reality: their reality one time might be the original post and their reality a later time might be the corrected or improved post. In effect, they would be asked to accept that change.

Yes, those who did and didn't see the original would have different realities. But people here already have different realities because of private communications.

Is it just that a reader might have to deal with a changed reality, or is it also that the poster should be taken to task if their original post was uncivil?

I think it's clear that this is open to debate, and limiting revisions to a certain time period and making denials actionable are already changes in course.

Bob


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Dr. Bob thread:660662
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20091103/msgs/927377.html