Yes. A few days ago I wrote a post replying to one (call it Post A) that quoted another post (call it Post B). I didn’t quote Post A because I thought my reply would immediately follow Post A, but there was an intermediate post. So I edited my post, to add Post A and nest Post B. But I screwed up and nested Post C instead. I reported this via the report post feature and Colibri kindly edited my post so that it correctly nested Post B.
In short, Colibri edited my post (after the five-minute window closed) so that I was no longer violating the rule against mucking with text in the Quote box.
A Note or a Warning in the TomnDebb’s Permanent Record for violating the 5 Minute Edit Rule is useful. It would have been valid if he asked another Mod to allow the edit and the other Mod granted the request. Granting the request for another Mod would then be debatable.
Unlike “I thought I was in The Pit”, editing after 5 minutes is (I assume) a deliberate step. Recording the action gives a poster-history of infractions just like any other poster. It can be used to review any subsequent contentions without worry that “Oh, but you forgot about all those other egregious violations that you never recorded!”
I insulted a poster a long time ago and that’s in my record. So if I do it again then Mods can see “He’s done it few and far between” and not "He does it every bloomin’ week!?
And here is a semi-related post in which he accuses Peter Morris of deliberately distorting other people’s statements, posts his own refutation, and then uses his mod powers to lock the thread. And this one in which he makes clear that accusations of deliberate misstatements are an accusation of lying.
There isn’t actually a “rule” against editing your post after five minutes, not in the same way there’s a rule against insulting people. It’s just something that’s disabled for non-Moderators. There’s no provision in the board rules for punishing someone for editing their posts after more than five minutes.
The rules (that we all see) don’t contain any moderator-specific rules, so it’s not remarkable that there is no rule against editing a post after 5 minutes since only moderators can do that. I get your point, but it’s kind of moot since the rules are set up that way in the first place.
I think that there might have been a second incident with someone else using the “Zipperhead” slur, but the one linked to earlier matches my recollection 100% except for the insult.
Insults aside, it was made clear that editing your post to get rid of a slur is no excuse.
And one of the major reasons it is disabled for us non-Mods is to prevent exactly what happened in this case. If this is a power (the ability to unwrite insults long after the five minute limit) that you think we can’t handle, then explain why you think Mods can.
And, what would be the harm in that? I mean, you post a insult, realize your mistake say 10 minutes later, and delete it. Fine by me.
Then, sure if it has been seen and offended someone, they report it and you get warned or noted. But if it’s NOT seen and thereby not offended anyone, why not get rid of it before it does offend someone?
This case here, with a slight misuse of Mod powers (no biggie, sure) is a excellent case to bring up longer edit times.
Give the warning and then explain why in your warning post. Doesn’t sound that complicated.
Also what I quoted above sounds like your saying you can’t give the warning because people would look back at the post and not see an insult and thus be confused.
So from that I take that as long as I edit a post with an insult in it before a mod sees it I’m in the clear and will not receive a warning.
