Agreed.
You seem to have a rather large chip on your shoulder about this place, particularly with how it is run. Why are you still here?
This is all very interesting but can the mods clarify the following :
Is the text posted during the 5 min edit window, part of your posting history even though the original text may disappear for evermore ?
If it is, then there is no point in the edit function. Remove it and just let the typos stand.
If it is not, then say so and be done with it. If anyone starts abusing the edit window, i am sure it will be spotted, reported and the usual disaplinary procedures will work just fine.
Personally I’d say once it’s been removed, it’s forgotten in all but the most extreme cases.
Well then…
[edited to remove the most ugly, slanderous statements in the entire history of the SDMB]
Cite that she questioned his sanity? You still seem to think she called Argent a nutbar. She didn’t. She said (one more time):
She was criticizing specific posts, not Argent as a person. She didn’t say, “Look, we’ve all read Argent’s posts about gun control, and after this thread, it’s obvious. He’s a nutbar. Why wasn’t he banned?” She narrowly indicated particular posts.
You’ve got to be kidding me? You see the relationship between moderators and adult members of this forum as the equivalent to the relationship between a teacher and students?
Considering all I did was tell her not to make any similar comments here, with zero repercussions, this has been dragged out to a ridiculous degree.
If we were in any other non-Pit forum, “You were an idiot in that post” would be treated as an insult and I’m applying the same standard to her remark that was “a raving nutbar in that post.” Saying the same person went on a “tirade of insanity” (as she did earlier) would be treated the same way. All I did was tell her to stop because she’d done it twice.
I agree, but i guess our definitions of ‘the most extreme cases’ are different.
Could C K Dexter Haven possible edit the FAQ to clarify this officialy ?
It’s up to Dex, but since editing was enabled in the beginning of 2007 it’s been clear that abuse of the editing function wasn’t going to be tolerated. I think adding and removing inflammatory remarks qualifies as that kind of abuse.
Oddly enough, it’s possible to enjoy participating here and interacting with the membership as a whole, as well as particular posters on an individual basis, and still disagree with way things are run. Or do you think people who don’t like the way things often get done around here should just STFU and go away and not bother to try to speak up for change? Maybe Americans who don’t like the way the US is run shouldn’t bother to vote and, instead, should just move someplace else? Yeah, let’s all do that. That’s a much better way!
Question then, occasionally I post something with more anger then intended and when I think it over I have edited it to take the bite out. I think I have even done a never mind post or two. Is this abusing the edit the function or not as I believe it is common.
And no, I know none of mine have been at all racist, but that is a matter degree not a complete difference.
Jim
That’s not abuse, that’s a good use of the edit function. Abuse would be inserting something inflammatory into a post to tick people off, then removing it so you won’t be held responsible for it. Don’t think about this too hard, it’s actually simple. If people felt you were abusing the edit function, somebody would’ve said so.
I would not consider that abuse and I am pretty sure that the rest of the staff would be in agreement with me.
The erasure of the racist remark was initially held up as a mitigating factor in the staff discussion until it was pointed out that the first editing was to insert it. (Other actions by the same poster also figured in the discussion).
I would think that poster’s remorse would be a perfectly legitimate use–and the quicker the better so that the inflammatory comment is not displayed for as long as possible. 
I am happy that they haven’t done so. I’ve been a member of a board where all disciplinary actions are private; you never know what was over the line, or why, or what was done about it. It looks to everyone like people break the rules with impunity all the time, because you never see the official reactions to it. The common response to any questions about how things are run there is somewhere between, “None of your business; we’re doing the best we can.” and “Don’t you worry your pretty little head about it.” I have come to really appreciate the give-and-take over moderating/official actions here.
I think this is part of where I’m differing from the official action; I consider it the important thing that he took it out, and the moderator consensus seems to be that the important thing is that he edited to put it in.
Was that the only reason he was suspended; I was under the impression it was the main violation but perhaps not the only one. He seemed determined to provoke. Of course I had predicted early in the thread that he was just having a bad day and would be back to apologize so I’ve been (very) wrong before.
To me, both of his comments were factors. To a much smaller degree, the warning from last week and his reaction to it also mattered, but those just reinforced that a suspension was called for.
This is a good example of where it might have helped things if **SkipMagic ** had posted a bit more than just …
It sure did make it appear that he was suspended for something that he thought better of. Now we learn of other warnings.
FTR: I still don’t agree, but there is no need for me to agree, but I think it would be good if the suspension/banning notices were given a bit more time and detail.
It’s a tricky thing sometimes. This spring, I thought I wrote a pretty careful and detailed explaination of why Wee Bairn was banned, and a few hours later I found people had read some things into my post that I’d never considered or intended. If I’d just written “banned for socks” that probably wouldn’t have happened.
It wasn’t necessary because he was suspended for that one post. Period. He had other warnings, true, and while the inclusion of those might have helped some people feel better about the suspension, it wasn’t necessary to bring them up. He posted a vile, racist insult just for the pleasure of doing so; there was no excuse for it, not even a silly “heat of the moment” defense, so a suspension was warranted independent of any previous warnings he may or may not have had.