Question about edited dickeries.

I won’t go on about the recent example as I think he was on his way to being banned/suspended and one excuse is as good as the next. But.

Can we have a clarification about being a jerk and then editing it out? As someone prone to lashing out in the heat of the moment and then regretting it on second thought, I am interested in this.

If you post something against the rules, and edit it out, did you still commit an offense? Our editing window is only 5 minutes, so it is not like one can use it to backpedal in the face of a pile on. Or trying to wipe evidence after a warning.

Someone editing something in 5 minutes sounds like someone reading his post after posting it and saying “well, that doesn’t read as well as it did in my mind, better take it back before someone reads it and takes offense”. Preview might have done the same, but not everybody previews every time.

So I am just leaving this here for consideration and would appreciate if the debate didn’t center around the specific recent case but more on the issue in general.

I think 5 minute contrition is as good as not having done it and should be let go.

ETA: (damn this was really not a post to have edited). Maybe people wanting to respond to something posted in the last five minutes should take the time to think their responses and do some counting to ten. This might lower the temperature of some discussions.

I agree: there’s no point in having editing, if everyone can look at what you’ve done.

At the same time, one of our major concerns when we allowed editing was the possibility of changing history. We have a lot of traffic here, and a post (certainly in a high-visibility thread) is often going to be seen within the five minute range, pre-editing.

My personal hope is that we’ll turn off this feature, but I’m not the decision-maker.

I truly hope you do not turn off editing. It is a huge boon in fixing mistakes and adding little extra bits of information without needing to double or triple post. The incidence of bad coding has greatly decreased since editing was allowed.

I also think that it is a good thing that people can quickly regret what they typed and remove the harshness of a post. There really is not a downside to that.

Five minutes is not changing history and more often than not, the change takes place before anyone has even read it. Let us not toss the baby with the bathwater here.

I agree with **Sapo **and would add that many of us have hit Submit by accident rather than Preview over the years.


Dex is talking about a feature that allows comparison of a post before and after it was edited - but I think that feature is only available to mods and admins. Nobody’s proposed turning off editing in general.

To answer Sapo’s question, I think it depends on what’s said exactly. In this case, mshar253 made his post, then edited it to add the offensive remark, then edited it again to remove it. And that wasn’t his only disgusting racial comment in that thread, either, so it was hard to see it as a spur-of-the-moment thing.

I don’t believe that should matter. Not to defend mshar’s overall behavior, but the fact remains that regardless of whether he edited a vile comment in to his post, he ultimately thought better of it and edited it out again. As far as the rules of the board are concerned, that’s all that should count here, IMO.

As Emily Litella use to say, “Never mind.”

Is this feature actually in use now? For example, if I claimed that Sapo made a death threat in his OP and then edited it out, could you tell I was lying? Because if the policy is going to be “pre-edited posts count,” I can forsee some potential issues here.

At the very least, editing out a comment should count as mitigating, else there’s no incentive to do so.

Yes, and yes.

It does count as a mitigating factor, and normally people don’t get warned for stuff they edit out. That doesn’t mean no response was warranted in this case.

That’s another angle I hadn’t fully thought of when I OPed.

Any edited post becomes open for I-said-she-said. Editing quotes is against the rules, but who can tell with edited quotes?
Or say I post a death threat, someone quotes me while I edit. Does that retraction count? Here I am tempted to say that once you are quoted, you are caught and then the offense is real. Very Schroedinger and all.

Running a red light when nobody sees it doesn’t get you a ticket, but if you are unlucky enough to do it in front of a cop, then you are toast. Some posts go unseen for hours, some are seen 30 times in 20 seconds. Luck of the draw and all that.

Still, for that to work, we have to know that the damning quote is real.
If TPTB decide that edited offenses don’t count, then there is little point to reacting to a post less than five minutes old.

Dismiss my last post then.

How does the e-mail notification work in regards to editing? When I get an e-mail notification, the text of the post is included with the e-mail. Obviously there isn’t an e-mail notification of every single post, but odds are that someone will be getting an e-mail every time a post is made. If the pre-edited version is sent out, then — presuming a rule is broken — it’s too late to take it back. IMO

Well, there’s the incentive of not looking like a total tool. Unfortunately, that prospect doesn’t appear to bother some people–but those sorts don’t usually last long around here.

I dunno, I was glad of the edit function recently when I had a mild brainmelt and posted a snarky comment in an obituary thread. It wasn’t wildly offensive, but on re-reading it was out of place and I was glad of the chance to take it back.

It seems like I can do that now, too, if only with my own posts, which kinda defeats the purpose of the feature, since if I edited it, I already know what I edited… :confused:

I get that some think a response was warranted, but why the suspension rather than a Warning? mshar didn’t ring my bell as a poster who’d accumulated a lot of warnings before, so why not give him the benefit of the doubt as to whether he was just abusing the edit system or not?

Because what he said was that disgusting.

And yet, somehow this (which I also note was not edited out in regret, unlike the other remark) wasn’t? Yeah, whatever.

Nope. If you don’t understand why we might give somebody a pass when provoked that way, I won’t bother explaining it.

Ah, so mere verbal provocation is an excuse for breaking an explicit rule, huh. Good to know.

Or do you wish to claim that this:

is not applicable in this case?

Besides “Asian” what was the other disgusting racial comment?