[Annissa]

I didn't have enough room to write exactly what I'm getting at in the title of this thread.

What I'm wondering about is what is Cat Forum's policy on people who edit out something they said when someone has already addressed it in a following post. For example, in "Wet food vs dry, I don't get it?" CatAholic had a rant about the difference between the beef industry and the dairy industry. Queen of the Nile addressed her sensitivity towards that topic, then CatAholic deleted the rant, thereby making QotN's post somewhat off-topic. I was thinking about this last night and the opportunity to ask about it popped up in that thread. I'd only seen it happen once before since I've been on this Forum. In other forums I frequent, that's like the worst sin imaginable. Usually the offending member is summarily banned. The atmosphere on Cat Forum is most definitely more friendly than the other forums I visit, so I'm not suggesting that CatAholic be banned. I'm just wondering what the policy is.

 

[Lori]

What a great question, Annissa. I would think at the very least the poster deleting the statements should address the fact that he or she did so and maybe explain why. Otherwise the threads become a little confusing, to say the least. :?
I will be anxious to see what Catman has to say.

 

[Jeanie]

You know, if the people who rant and rave and delete it knew they were facing a suspension (at least) they might think twice before doing it! As it is, the person on the receiving end who has answered the question seems to be overly sensitive or not on topic. It's a cowardly act. The offending person should apologize-at least.

 

[Jeanie]

Dan, Would you please address this problem? I don't think people should be banned, but if there is some consequense, people wouldn't be so quick to "Hit and Run." The person getting attacked gets hit, but the membershiip wonders what happened, because the answer makes so sense, as Annissa pointed out.

 

[catman]

i can see how this could be a problem. it is also something that’s hard to control. we can add it to the site rules and make a post as a notice that this rule has been added.

a warning is appropriate if a mod sees a blatant edit of an important part of a topic, and recommend a banning if necessary.

how should we word this new rule?

 

[Jeanie]

Here's a "rough draft" and some more ideas. (I should be more careful myself! It drives me crazy if I notice a typo or incorrect punctuation! I always edit errors from my own posts, no matter how old they are. :roll: I know; I'm a nerd.)

Please consider the wording of your posts carefully. Although a partial edit might be necessary for clarification, flaming and then deleting the post will be cause for a warning.

Or, you could start it with:

Think before you post.

Flaming and then deleting the post will not be tolerated, and will result in a warning. (Sounds a bit mean, but it's concrete and concise.)

 

[Annissa]

Think before you post.

That's how I started my rough draft. I think you finished it way better than I did. I'm not very good at making clear, concise messages.

I also had a part in mine where I said something like "When editing a message, note at the bottom of your post what has been changed."

 

[Jeanie]

That might be a bit too much. I would have to write, "I had to add a comma!" :lol:

 

[Zalensia]

Think before you post.

Flaming and then deleting the post will not be tolerated, and will result in a warning. (Sounds a bit mean, but it's concrete and concise.)

what about adding to that

Think before you post.

Flaming and then editing out any posts or any old posts will not be tolerated, and will result in a warning.

I put editing because technicaly members cant delete their posts but only edit them, I thought using the word delete may confuse some people

And then if there was to be a thread made stating the new rule the reason why could be-

Some people use old posts for reference, editing out old messages leaves them full of gaps and making little or no sence.

 

[Annissa]

That might be a bit too much. I would have to write, "I had to add a comma!" :lol:

In the other forums I frequent, I usually see people say, (Edited for grammar and/or punctuation). This forum has the little default "edited 1 time" line at the bottom when a post is edited, so it may be unnecessary.

 

[Padunk]

This problem started to run rampant on another forum I frequent. In order to get it to stop, the admin only allowed post edits for the first sixty minutes after it was posted.

In short, on that forum we have sixty minutes to clean up grammar and spelling. I find it very rare that I ever need to edit a post after that timespan.

 

[Lilly]

I think that is an excellent idea, I dont find it to be necasary to edit after the inital proof reading for errors. After all if someone mis understands what you are trying to say in your post you can always re post to clarify. This is generally what people do anyhow.

I vote for Padunks idea... if possible :wink:

 

[Lori]

I like Padunk's idea as well.

 

[Jeanie]

By the time sixty minutes is up, the poster has probably already achieved his goal. He has hurt a member or that member's reputation, and many people have read it. And it's possible noone has told a mod in that time limit, and that person will get away with it.

Zalensia, perhaps the word "edit" is better, although removing every word except one or leaving a smiley is possible.

To keep the sentence short and to the point, I would then say:

"Extensive editing of a post, old or new, to remove flaming or other infractions of the rules will not be tolerated and will result in a warning."

 

[catman]

the new rule has been added, it's rule 1.N


thanks for writing it jeanie

 

[Annissa]

Thanks catman!

 

[catman]

thanks for supporting a rule that makes good sense.