Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

Should the Mod be editing posts, unless there is a potential legal issue for the Forum? I also suspect that on occasion he has done more than just edit a post, though I can't prove it, could just be the sites current issues, but I'm watching very carefully what is happening.

At the risk of further ludicrous accusations of ‘covering for each other’ (aka agreeing), I would say that the mod absolutely should not be editing posts. If there is a legal issue for the forum then the relevant post should be deleted. Beyond that the moderator has no business altering/editing/interfering with other people’s posts.

Would be nice if any of the recent questions put to him could be answered though. That is, after all, the purpose of an alleged ‘forum’…to exchange views and opinions.

[Andy_Faber]

Should the Mod be editing posts, unless there is a potential legal issue for the Forum? I also suspect that on occasion he has done more than just edit a post, though I can't prove it, could just be the sites current issues, but I'm watching very carefully what is happening.

lol

[Geoff Parkstone]

For the peace of mind of those who feel the mod is overstepping the mark, my post was edited as I had mistakenly spelled the word Swale as Seale. Not because I know he likes balancing balls on his nose, but because w and e are adjacent on the keyboard.

Hope that makes you feel less paranoid

[ramAnag]

For the peace of mind of those who feel the mod is overstepping the mark, my post was edited as I had mistakenly spelled the word Swale as Seale. Not because I know he likes balancing balls on his nose, but because w and e are adjacent on the keyboard.

Hope that makes you feel less paranoid

Nothing to do with being paranoid, Rog.

The precedent is set. The ability to edit posts identified. It simply shouldn’t happen. Can’t remember any other mod doing it and this site is littered with errors. Why correct this one in particular. Why, on this occasion, go out of his way to identify Swale?
Okay, this time it isn’t particularly serious or wilful. What if the next time someone writes, ‘I think Farage should be monitored’ and our moderator playfully decides to change it to, ‘I think Farage should be murdered’…because you think that’s ok?
You see the problem? We’re into apparent Charlie Kirk territory then. Who said/meant what? If your spelling/grammar fails you, so be it. The moderator’s role is not to correct.

[MadAmster]

If a Moderator thinks a post should be edited or deleted, IMO, (and it's what I did when being Admin/Mod on a couple of sites) they should message the poster, explaining why they believe it should be amended, for instance, the post opens both the poster and the site to possible lawsuits for the content. If the poster refuses to delete/edit, the Mod should then take the necessary action.

Apparently PMs are not currently working so that's not an option but AF could easily post "please amend/delete because....." in a reply to the offending post.

[SithHappens]

I expect moderators on most forums have the ability to edit posts if needs be.

I recall over on dcfcfans when B4 who had learning difficulties used the term Coloured to refer to someone. I flagged it with a moderator who amended it.

Of course it could be altered by the poster but there is a time limit to do so. Editing a post rather than deleting can sometimes be better as the rest of the post may be valid.

Of course a post wouldn't be deleted for a typo, provided said typo doesn't make it inappropriate.

However I don't personally have a problem if I make a glaringly obvious typo and it's corrected by a moderator.

Clearly if the moderator altered the post to make what had been written look bad then that's different, but I guess that's where trust in those moderating comes in. While i might disagree with AF on some things I think he's not going to alter a post inappropriately. IMO.

[ramAnag]

I expect moderators on most forums have the ability to edit posts if needs be.

I recall over on dcfcfans when B4 who had learning difficulties used the term Coloured to refer to someone. I flagged it with a moderator who amended it.

Of course it could be altered by the poster but there is a time limit to do so. Editing a post rather than deleting can sometimes be better as the rest of the post may be valid.

Of course a post wouldn't be deleted for a typo, provided said typo doesn't make it inappropriate.

However I don't personally have a problem if I make a glaringly obvious typo and it's corrected by a moderator.

Clearly if the moderator altered the post to make what had been written look bad then that's different, but I guess that's where trust in those moderating comes in. While i might disagree with AF on some things I think he's not going to alter a post inappropriately. IMO.

We’ll have to agree to differ on many aspects of that Sith.

We used to - before your time I think - have a poster on here called Mista. Bright man, ran his own company I believe and made more sense than many as regards both politics and football, but his written literacy skills were quite poor. I doubt if any moderator would have had the time to correct all his mistakes and it is very questionable that they would have been able to do so without changing his meaning, but he still got his point across.

To me it’s the thin end of the wedge when any moderator starts ‘correcting’. Their job is, imo, to ensure the rules of the forum are adhered to, that the forum works and that no libel laws are broken…nothing more. Be interesting to hear what ex mods like Bloomer or Ramondo have to say if they’re reading.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I remember the Rat and Chris regularly editting posts back in the day much to my annoyance.

But they did edit a spelling error in a post of mine about having a wife who was a nagger which seemed justified

[Andy_Faber]

I expect moderators on most forums have the ability to edit posts if needs be.

I recall over on dcfcfans when B4 who had learning difficulties used the term Coloured to refer to someone. I flagged it with a moderator who amended it.

Of course it could be altered by the poster but there is a time limit to do so. Editing a post rather than deleting can sometimes be better as the rest of the post may be valid.

Of course a post wouldn't be deleted for a typo, provided said typo doesn't make it inappropriate.

However I don't personally have a problem if I make a glaringly obvious typo and it's corrected by a moderator.

Clearly if the moderator altered the post to make what had been written look bad then that's different, but I guess that's where trust in those moderating comes in. While i might disagree with AF on some things I think he's not going to alter a post inappropriately. IMO.

Of course I wouldn?t Sith. Thanks for your trust

[Andy_Faber]

If a Moderator thinks a post should be edited or deleted, IMO, (and it's what I did when being Admin/Mod on a couple of sites) they should message the poster, explaining why they believe it should be amended, for instance, the post opens both the poster and the site to possible lawsuits for the content. If the poster refuses to delete/edit, the Mod should then take the necessary action.

Apparently PMs are not currently working so that's not an option but AF could easily post "please amend/delete because....." in a reply to the offending post.

I probably would do so in most circumstances and have pmd folk in the past, usually when the common error of writing could/ should/ would instead of their opposites makes a point being made totally contrary. In the case of your Chris/Charlie thing you weren?t apparently around and I anticipated it being the start of a deluge of posts. I?ll make best endeavours to let you know next time.