When you edit posts do you think it would be a good idea to just write in red [color=red]“Mod note: deleted.”[/color]?
I think there is a difference between 1) deleting posts in their entirety, 2) Removing words and saying that it has been done, and 3) Editing what someone wrote and saying nothing about it.
I refer of course to the “Miss Popularity,” thread, where I notice doubter99’s words have been edited and no note has been made.
I’d say that the above is acceptable.
Doubter99 never wrote that, a mod did, and made it look like Doubter99’s words. I don’t know if that kind of thing is such a good idea.
[quote=“Ironman”]I’d rather have my posts deleted, rooted, shooted or electrocuted than have others comments inserted like it was an exam being marked.
Just me of course.
I was never a good school kid.[/quote]
Me too.
Flame or flounder me but don’t hack me up into little pieces.
[quote=“Ironman”]I’d rather have my posts deleted, rooted, shooted or electrocuted than have others comments inserted like it was an exam being marked.
I hate Tomhill [MOD WARNING - keep your posts directed at content/argument not individuals] for all the times he’s [MOD EDIT - hearsay without attribution] and [MOD EDIT - reference to beastiality removed due to squeal complaint].
But as if that’s not enough. The bastard also [MOD EDIT - entire paragraph erased due to reference to an ongoing criminal investigation].
Don’t believe me? Take a look at this: [MOD EDIT - insertion of pornography prohibited under rule #234]. What kind of sick individual does that?
But the rest of you seem to think he’s just great. You can all just [MOD EDIT - verb usage of the f-word directed at a large group of people likely to create calls for a linching, with some level of liability shared by f.com]
[MOD WARNING - guangtou, clean up your act or face a ban. You have been warned. Anyway Tom’s a nice bloke and a good mate of mine… ]
I don’t think too many posts need to be altered. Erhu, for example, often posts a nice little warning, or says why she has chosen to remove part of a post. It’s the mod who decides to re-write someone’s post, that I would question. I would rather see my words or nothing. Not someone’s interpretation.
Guangtou, who yold you I was a nice bloke? They must be a pathological liar!
If the changes make it clearer for the reader then I think it is a good idea. For example I recently wrote “emitions” when I should have written “emissions” I was too lazy to look it up. The moderator changed it not only in the heading but also in the post, saving me some embarrassment and also making it clearer. After the title was changed more useful replies were posted because people understood what I was refering to.
However, if the context is changed I don’t think that is such a good idea. Perhaps only necessary changes should be made?
So you’d rather have the thread disrupted and an entire post flamed or temped because of one personal attack at the end?
Sometimes it’s better to just delete the line in question and save it to the line item deleted thread in the flame forum.
Just my feeling
jdsupportsthelineitemdeletion[/quote]
Who was talking about line deletion? Please read my original post. I am talking about a moderator using ‘artistic license’ and writing words in that appear to have been written by the poster, but were not.
Can you see what I am writing about? I would rather the mod wrote that they deleted something, than use their own interpretation and put their words onto a posters post, and pass it off as something the poster wrote. It is quite simple.
If it’s (deemed) necessary for the range of expression of a group of (technical) adults to have limits and parameters imposed, that’s a situation that we have at least accepted, by consensus.
Altering such expression, emphasis here on alter as opposed to censor (by clear deletion, attributed or otherwise), well, that’s pretty fucking offensive.
Not to mention condesceding and insulting.
Bad enough already that the auto-Fascist software changes “c"ocksucker” to some insipid form in PMs.
Christ, even in jail or wartime, they just redact it with a Magic Marker.
“People should not be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their people”
-V
I was wondering that myself. If they do, I haven’t noticed.[/quote]I don’t think any moderators rewrite posts. Apart from it not being a good idea anyway, I don’t think any moderators have TIME to rewrite posts! It’s hard enough trying to untangle bits of good stuff from bits of inflammatory rubbish without trying to rewrite stuff as well.
As for the “inserting text where something has been deleted” there are good arguments for and good arguments against. As mods we spend a fair amount of time discussing things like this and I hope that everybody can feel assured that no decision to remove posts or remove lines from posts is made lightly, and that a number of factors are considered when deciding whether to insert a “moderator comment” after such action.
[quote]I don’t think any moderators rewrite posts. Apart from it not being a good idea anyway, I don’t think any moderators have TIME to rewrite posts! [/quote]Bullshit! I have not been able to post a single thing without having Sandman editing it! EVERY POST! If you have any comments about this, don’t quote me, PM the bastard as he will surely edit this one too. :fume:
[quote=“bobepine”][quote]I don’t think any moderators rewrite posts. Apart from it not being a good idea anyway, I don’t think any moderators have TIME to rewrite posts! [/quote]Brilliant! I have been able to post anything without having Sandman editing it! EVERY POST! If you have any comments about this, don’t quote me, PM Maoman or Gustav.
bobepine[/quote]
See what I mean?! He did it again! :fume: :fume: :fume:
[/b]
]