[redjpwranglergirl]

I haven't replied on this thread yet because even though when a time limit was first discussed, I voted for a very short time limit for posts to be changed. But, I was in the minority so it wasn't a big deal- I could go along with what the majority wanted. My reasons were coming from what I saw go on for several years at "another forum that will remain nameless"- precisely #3 on kimmydawn's list. Maybe it didn't go on on all forums so it wasn't a problem on them. But, it caused a HUGE problem on the "nameless" forum. And granted, it wasn't something that everybody on there was guilty of-in fact, a huge majority of the members never did it- just 2 or 3 people- and I'm happy to say that "that" doesn't appear to happen here as often as it did over "there"- especially in the last few months. People who presumed themselves in charge of the forum would purposely start fights or say really hateful things to others on there and then if their post wasn't going over too well, they'd edit out what they'd said or done and then go, "who me"?! Please...give me a break....But I do understand the reasons of those who've posted here in favor of a longer limit. But the "rewritting of history" to appear "innocent" later was my main reason for being against unlimited time to edit posts.

[glenntaj]

--of the possibility that in controversial situations, people who have flamed others may well go back, if there is no editing time limit, and "change history" to make it look as if they have been completely innocent.

One thing that I have taken the precaution of doing--in any situation in which I want to have proof of what was being said/not said in a particular thread, I copy the thread into a Word document, as is. Should it become necessary (e.g., should the thread be significantly altered), I can always PM the thread to a moderator as an attachment, so that the moderator can see that the attached document has not been edited or altered since it was copied verbatim from the board (Word doc contain records of such edits).

I don't like having to this--I realize it has a taint of paranoia--and indeed have only done several times my whole Internet history. But those several times it was invaluable in being able to prove what had gone down interactively, and I think it may have discouraged some flamers from flaming again (at least at those sites).

[waves]

Originally Posted by kimmydawn

There are a few bonuses for having a time limit.

why do i feel like i'm in a car dealership. great transmission, just listen to that engine, great transmission, leather seats, great transmission, great mileage, single-user owned, you're gonna love it. and all the while i am asking about airbags.

i'n so tired of hearing the rote phrases... - "contact mod" "contact MOD-ER-A-TOR" "polly wanna moderator" "contact admin" "mod and admin so kind" etc etc... i think i will need a forum holiday even an internet holiday perhaps. i have parrot speak in my head. Someone says "i can't ask", and the response is always "ask" with some endearing verbal condiments.

That said, i accept administrative policy and no more "but"ing in. I have posted not to offend but only expose my issues. Unfortunately i don't feel heard but that is now moot. simply, i take note.

Originally Posted by kimmydawn

12 hours has been chosen as a reasonable editing time limit. As I've stated before...some communities only allow for 1 hour.

I am amazed at this comparison to other forums. 1, 12, 24, 36, square root of minus 2, unlimited whatever. hopefully deliberation of the new edit limit here was based only on what to do here, and not BrainTalk or elsewhere.

Originally Posted by kimmydawn

you can always add a correction, or expand, in a following post.

if my reasons (quoted in this thread) against this policy had been truly understood, it might occur to one that posting about a "scary" post is often worse - it bumps the thread.

Med/info posts are different. heck i've had other members post contact ME if i made a slip and i've gone and corrected it, and quoted the correction in a new post specifically to bump the thread. i have NOO problem with a MOD doing this for me....Why? Again, it is [B]not emotionally charged.

Originally Posted by kimmydawn

when you PM a mod, you don't have to give "whys"

my asking anyone be it a mod admin or my best bud, if i'm in a non-contact emotional state is like.....

Hello??? Would you ask someone in a wheelchair to walk??? Bipolar Disorder, while not a physical limitation has deep emotional limitations.

its time for another walk around the block for me. I never thought i'd participate so much in forum feedback, and it has stressed me off my patootie.

Kimmy if i sound upset, i am. it is to be expected, but i know...

you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Again, the 12 hours will stand for now but we will revisit it at a later date.

Good. I liked that part.

Can we have a poll when we revisit?

best regards,

~ waves ~ from (to be determined)

[jccgf]

Originally Posted by waves

.

Can we have a poll when we revisit?

A past poll has already determined that the majority desires unlimited editing, but administrative concerns have trumped that. I'm sure a future poll would probably show the same thing. At this point, I think we're going to have to try to learn to live with an edit limit despite many of us not liking it.

http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/sh...ght=edit+limit

I don't like the limit either. I hadn't posted on this thread so far because I've made feelings known in the past.

I'm learning to live with uncorrected typos, uncorrected grammar mistakes, and trying to remember not to post about my children's personal symptoms/experiences...something I later like to remove for their privacy.

Like you, waves, but perhaps for a different reason, I don't feel comfortable asking the moderators to edit my posts. I just don't like to bother people for something that is generally insignificant, even if I'm being told repeatedly it is no bother at all. Seriously, I think they would tire of me asking for help to dot my i's and cross my t's, change their to there, know to now, and correct my spelling mistakes because I neglected to spell check, reword my sentence so the tenses match or my verbs are in agreement, or because better wording might be clearer, or to add an inadvertently omitted word, etc. Although seeing my mistakes cast in stone makes me a little crazy, that is my issue. Nobody else gives a hoot. My paper isn't being graded here. I'm learning to live with my mechanical errors, so I guess it is helping to reduce my obsessiveness in that area. Maybe good therapy.

My pasts concerns about trying to keep informative threads organized are no longer a big concern for me because I keep all that on another format now (googlepages). I understand that frustration for others because I've spent so much time in the past keeping data organized and in an easily usable form.

As for corrections of substance, it seems to me that corrections are best made at the source (as well as bumped as an alert), rather than making a correction six pages into a thread, where over time they may never be seen because someone may lose interest in reading a long thread before they get there. Many people aren't reading these forums in real time, so they may not notice the 'bumped' correction that is buried in the midst of a long thread. They may be reading threads that were written months and eventually years ago.

There are all sorts of pro's and con's for a time limit. I think it is unfortunate that the freedom of the whole has to suffer because of problems caused by a few, but that happens in real life, too. I guess we just have to try to adjust, and for me, it hasn't been a big problem thus far. I would still prefer unlimited editing, though, for the record.

Cara

BTW.. I have probably edited this at least 12 times to make corrections, and I'm sure I have still missed a few that I won't see for days.

[loisba]

I just happened to notice a post that had been edited by Chemar though not posted by her. http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/sh...ad.php?t=16554
I'm assuming that this was at the request of the poster after the editing time limit had passed. However, the wording of the editing leaves one wondering if it had been done by Chemar acting on her own just because she didn't like the spelling mistake, or for whatever reason. I wonder if it might not be better to have the wording something like: Last edited by Chemar for (name of poster); or- Last edited for (name of poster); or last edited by Mod at request of (name of poster).
Otherwise a newbie is liable to think that the mods just go in and edit anything they happen to take exception to. (Chemar, we who know you and love you realize you would never do such a thing! )
Hugs,

[Chemar]

no Lois...mods will not ever simply go into members posts and edit spelling or grammar or anything other than a violation of the guidelines without requests or agreement from the member who made the post......we for sure are NOT the Spell Police

[loisba]

I know you wouldn't, but what about a change in the wording so as not to leave a wrong impression? I'm concerned that someone who does not know our community well may get the wrong idea!
Hugs,

[Chemar]

if it means that much to you Lois....it is done...the spelling error corrected was for the URL so that it went to the correct site.

[loisba]

Thanks, Chemar, that took care of it nicely, and is not open to any mis-interpretation.
Hugs,