Im looking for peoples opinions on redacting posts. By this I mean editing a post with comments like "redacted" to aim to remove the content.

My opinion is that it destroys a conversation as it can render them completely useless. Destroying our discussions about various topics isnt great and in my opinion is akin to censorship.

I have had a number of people messaging me to complain about the behaviour of some members. This post is not about specific people but the practice in specific. Lets please not discuss specific people.

If people need to remove or hide a post I am open to that discussion but removing large swathes of discussion and content is sad.

So depending on peoples opinions, we as a group, can work out what we want to do with this, if anything.

Please vote and comment!

Edited January 12, 20188 yr by Chewett

Personally I don't see it as a positive behaviour and it is certainly harmful to the forum. I don't think making a hard and fast rule against it is the answer, however. Perhaps some way to view the history of a post would be better? That would make these sorts of edits pointless. 

No redacting (removing entire posts) 

If it really is that much of a problem you could disallow editing after X minutes have passed (that way users can still correct typos and whatnot). Or disallow editing after the thread receives another reply. 

I do like the editing since i tend to find some mistakes grammar or spelling wise after i post

But

Redacting entire posts without stating a reason is in my opinion just immature,

if what someone wrote is so embarrassing that they try to hide it by removing it it just shows bad character,

in such a case its better to just stand straight for your mistakes and write an apology post

I believe that there were some role for the ability to change what one hath said. Yet, one should be responsible for that which they do speak.

I would agree that to be able to view the history of a post should resolve this issue to some degree, as it doth allow for one to correct mistakes, while keeping all accountable for their utterances.

 

7 hours ago, Nepgear said:

If it really is that much of a problem you could disallow editing after X minutes have passed (that way users can still correct typos and whatnot). Or disallow editing after the thread receives another reply. 

I like that idea, if that's a technical option.

Generally, i think that even when we say or write stupid things, it's better to apologize and actually take them back than to "rewind time".

I agree with the people above about having a public edit history, too, but i think that's just another technical way to making this "redacting" thing impossible, while it doesn't add to the process of deciding whether we want to remove redacting or not.

Definitely don't block people from redacting.

Redacting is useful while buying and selling or during misunderstandings. But yeah maybe restore when its part of a proper convo/discussion and the person is only doing it cause they're wrong, or something...

The current idea is to disallow edits after a day as the poll seems pretty clear

1. No, there is a lot of history on the forum and removing posts removes the integrity of that history, I would like to think I and others could go back and read these posts and be able to get the full picture of what was going on.

2. Yes, large swathes of redacted posts should be restored for reasons I give in point one, a single post here and there I am not so concerned about.

3. No... I deliberate to say no here as saying yes removes the need for redacted posts to be restored in the first place, but I feel being able to edit posts is a nice thing and I am unsure how to take away the ability to redact posts without taking away the ability to edit them. Perhaps the best way would be the edit history as suggested and I support that idea. On the other hand not being able to edit after a reply has been made is a bit extreme as certain times replies can come within seconds.

Allowing post edits for only a day seems reasonable, or at least having later edits require specific approval of some sort.