|
| Thread: Who owns posts at HC? The poster or the community? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Loknar
Adventuring Hero
Missing Links
|
posted April 12, 2006 03:46 AM |
|
Edited by Loknar on 12 Apr 2006
|
|
Did I cheat? Where? I just wanted to point out that the perspective of the author shouldn't be dismissed in favour of that of the reader. Or the opposite. Communication (and community) needs both.
|
|
Korejora
Promising
|
|
posted April 12, 2006 04:02 AM |
|
|
Good and bad already are just my opinion and not my opinion to huge extremes. 
...
I'm also strongly opposed to the restricting of editing and deleting. When I'm sifting through old threads I've replied to, months after I made the post originally, I find posts of mine that I don't want there, and I delete them. My reason for deleting such a post is most often that there was no response to it, and so I feel it made no contribution to the thread. Since the message wasn't involved in the discussion, it isn't interrupted by the removal of the post, and I feel better knowing firstly that people have one less irrelevant post to read through and secondly that I won't risk any possible feeling of having been ignored every time I see the post. Deleting posts isn't really all that rare for me, and I don't like the idea of having to go through someone else to effect what I see as a very personal decision.
Also, it's not until long after I've made a post that I want to edit it. Spelling mistakes and typos are not generally an issue for me, and because of how meticulously I think things through it often takes me a great deal more than a week to change my mind on subject very much. Usually when I edit, though, what I'm most concerned about is not really a change in point of view, but rather people hearing the wrong voice. I reword things I've said to be more (or less?  ) polite or to appeal to a different audience as I realize that I'm speaking too formally to a casual group or whatever the case may be. This is the kind of edit that doesn't really change the content, but is still beneficial to anyone who may read the thread later - in fact, I think it's the kind that Loknar's idea of the non-reviving edit is good for.
Random thought: Keeping in mind that a chief problem with deleting is that removing mid-thread posts harms the continuity of the conversation, there's probably no need to restrict deleting on the last reply in a thread, is there?
Back to the controversy... I don't think that restricting editing and deleting is necessary. Xarfax's decision was one major thing that stimulated its consideration, but I don't think it is or will become a critical and ongoing problem. It's not common that someone becomes so frustrated that they choose to delete work significant to both them and the community.
I'm completely with Loknar - I'd be happiest if nothing changed.
____________
That's the best part. 
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2006 04:15 AM |
|
|
As for the question "What is more important, the reading or the writing?". Any action, or lack of action, gives weight to one side or the other. Any decission MUST affect one positively and the other negatively.
____________
|
|
LegendMaker
Promising
Famous Hero
The Metal Specialist
|
posted April 12, 2006 04:20 AM |
|
|
Progression Vs Stagnation
Loknar and Koreja, you are both perfectionnists (me too, in many respects). But, thankfully, we perfectionnists are exceptions !
It doesn't make any kind of sense to try and improve the past !
The past is dead and it can't be improved.
You should instead try to improve the present thanks to the wrongs of the past ! By the time you achieve that, if you succeed, said improved present will be the future !
Course, you can spend your whole life rewriting your one novel that you originally written when you were 10 years old, Loknar (make believe you are a novellist just to let me prove my point, okay ? ). Depending on the age you will be when you die, you will either be remembered as the kind of writer you were at this age or that age.
I think it's much better to write a new novel everytime you feel like rewriting the previous one differently. You'll end up with many different novels, in the end. And several, not just one of them might be worth reading.
Maybe you believe what you say when you're pretending the thirty-sixth edit of a post has still anything to do with the original post (Legendary exaggeration here, for dramatic purposes only ).
But I sure know it's not the case. It's just another post, a new one, that reflects the current style and ideas of the guy who is rewriting it. And the style and ideas of the person that has WRITTEN it are forever buried under the rewriting.
I used to fool myself the same way about my writings IRL, so I do know what I'm talking about. No one will ever reach perfection. It wouldn't do anyone any good to reach it, anyways ! I'll quote good old Lemmy here : The Chase Is Better Than The Catch !
Searching for perfection endlessly at the same place will keep you from searching it elsewhere. That's called stagnation, art wise.
I Vote for Progression.
Kindly. Legend. 
____________
LM    
|
|
Loknar
Adventuring Hero
Missing Links
|
|
posted April 12, 2006 04:31 AM |
|
Edited by Loknar on 11 Apr 2006
|
Quote:
It doesn't make any kind of sense to try and improve the past !
The past is dead and it can't be improved.
That is a very lighthearted answer for someone who claims to be interested in history. What's the point of keeping threads in forum if the past is dead/valueless? My librarian ego is revolting against this. I find it one of the most attractive aspects of forum communication that the past can be revived - and adapted to the present.  [future edit/delete: This is most interesting, but I really have to go now ]
|
|
Valeriy
Mage of the Land
Naughty, Naughty Valeriy
|
|
posted April 12, 2006 04:41 AM |
|
|
I think that when you edit a post that is more than a year old (unless it is some technical list of contents), you are trying to cover up who you were at that time and moment. There are posts on HC which I definitely would not make today, and things I've said which are embarrasing. But that was me at that time and moment. Why shouldn't people find out what I was like a few years ago? We fear being judged for who we were and so we want to lie. I think editing an old post which people responded to is making a lie - pretending that you've said something else, that you were someone else at the time. That's an extreme view, but I'd like to use those words to get across what I mean. That's what historic threads are - historic threads. If one of the participants goes and modifies one of the historic responses to a today's one, what's the worth of that history, where's truth in that?
I'd just like to raise this point for now, along with the question of what is the timeframe after which something becomes history: one month, three, six months or a year?
____________
You can wait for others to do it, but if they don't know how, you'll wait forever.
Be an example of what you want to see on HC and in the world.
http://www.heroesofmightandmagic.com
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2006 04:44 AM |
|
|
Well, at least both sides have been presented. People have different opinions, which is to be expected.
Personally I'd like to see a compromise. One I mentioned in my first post. That things be left as they are, but Val has the right to restore deleted posts as he sees fit. (which he can already do)
I also like my idea of reverse flood protect. Maybe something like
No more than 1 deletion per day.
Unlimited edits for 1 week.
After 1 week, only 1 edit per day.
Of course the time periods could be different.
____________
|
|
LegendMaker
Promising
Famous Hero
The Metal Specialist
|
posted April 12, 2006 04:57 AM |
|
|
Truth From Lies
Quote:
What's the point of keeping threads in forum if the past is dead/valueless?
Just a missunderstanding, my friend. I care VERY MUCH about the Past and History. I CARE about Remembrance. Dead things (just like people) aren't useless ! I NEVER implied they were ! Perish the thought ! 
The thing is, if you even consider wether it would make a better story if this dead guy you're writing a book about had said this or that, you are definitely NOT dealing with History, my friend !
This is called Revisionnism. Revisionnism is the History REwritten. It's LIES, just like Val said.
And I doubt you'd like the sound of it, precisely because you are a Librarian, and I have the feeling you care for the TRUTH as much as I do.
So if you care for the Past, the FIRST thing you have to do is to ADMIT it IS DEAD. History is the story of it's life. WRITTEN, not REwritten.
@Val : Your above post says it all even further and straighter than my metaphors and detailed analysis managed to do. I refrain from quoting anything from it, because I'd end up quoting it all !
@ALL : If even ONE of you has the idea of me being a Teacher's Pet even CROSSING his mind... Go tell Tiggie or Angie about it ! You'll be in for a good laugh, I tell you !
I'm all with Val on that matter. Simply because his points are the most reasonable and the ones that make the more sense to me.
Legend.
____________
LM
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted April 12, 2006 05:22 AM |
|
|
Valeriy,
Quote:
I think that when you edit a post that is more than a year old (unless it is some technical list of contents), you are trying to cover up who you were at that time and moment. There are posts on HC which I definitely would not make today, and things I've said which are embarrasing. But that was me at that time and moment. Why shouldn't people find out what I was like a few years ago? We fear being judged for who we were and so we want to lie. I think editing an old post which people responded to is making a lie - pretending that you've said something else, that you were someone else at the time.
I confess that I have done this and I agree it is a lie. I could sit here and explain my reasons but in the end you are right. I have lied. The way to know if I have lied is to compare the post date to its edit date. People should be aware of this.
Quote:
That's an extreme view, but I'd like to use those words to get across what I mean. That's what historic threads are - historic threads. If one of the participants goes and modifies one of the historic responses to a today's one, what's the worth of that history, where's truth in that?
The historic thread in question is precisely Xarfax111's post. Some people know I regard him highly and others do not. I have him quoted on my own personal page. I really liked him and he contributed so much to this community. For him to do what he did was very selfish. He has let his fans down. I still look up to him for guidance on gaming and veteran battle stories. It hurts to hear the choices he made. Even though he has become bitter, I do not think of him any less. I believe in him as a good person. I just know it in my heart.
Quote:
I'd just like to raise this point for now, along with the question of what is the timeframe after which something becomes history: one month, three, six months or a year?
One month . . . I say one for being allowed to edit. History is made at the exact moment a post or thread affects a person; be it for better or worse.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
LegendMaker
Promising
Famous Hero
The Metal Specialist
|
|
posted April 12, 2006 05:41 AM |
|
|
Creator =/= Creation !
Quote:
The historic thread in question is precisely Xarfax111's post.
The vast majority of laws are proposed and voted following a certain event that pointed out their necessity to the people's then to the authorities' attention. Xarfax's recent purge was the trigger event that made us realize we needed to have this debate. But there's much more at stake here than the whole Xarfax issue.Quote:
Some people know I regard him highly and others do not.
Even in the particular situation of "should Xarfax posts be restored or not"... This is not the question. Wether you, me or any other member like Xarfie or not has nothing to do with wether or not should his posts be restored.
Like I stated in my previous post, I don't support Val's idea because I like Val. Matter of fact, it's not even Val I support but his idea.
Same goes for Xarfie : even if I hated him, that wouldn't change the fact he is brilliant and quite some of his posts are well worth keeping around.
However, I happen to like him. But it's completely off-topic, imho.
Legend.
[ADDIT] : Even if Michael Jackson was to record a cover version of the Jackson Five's "I Want You Back" cult song today, with his 50 years old voice and his multi-edited face, I for one would NOT give him my copy of the original back !
____________
LM
|
|
Valeriy
Mage of the Land
Naughty, Naughty Valeriy
|
|
posted April 12, 2006 06:46 AM |
|
|
While waiting for more opinions on this I'd like to add a possible idea which is quite feasible for me to implement.
The time period for editing/deleting of a standard post could be 3 or 6 months or whatever we decide it to be.
For posts that are given a QP, the deletion could be disabled and editing period shortened to for example 1 month.
Also it would be reasonable to make a QP with editing allowance - a kind of QP that allows the author to edit that particular post indefinitely. That kind of QP could be used for lists.
These are doable possibilities.
____________
You can wait for others to do it, but if they don't know how, you'll wait forever.
Be an example of what you want to see on HC and in the world.
http://www.heroesofmightandmagic.com
|
|
FriendOfGunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted April 12, 2006 07:39 AM |
|
|
Can I vote please?
I'm with Xarfax, anybody should be able to edit anything at any time. When people delete posts, the other people surrounding them typically make some type of notation that indicates what was deleted. Sure Xar's "gems" are gone but that just leaves room for someone else to discover things and post them. This place to me is kind of like a giant ultra-sophisticated bulletin board. Where am I going with this post? I have no idea.
|
|
Loknar
Adventuring Hero
Missing Links
|
|
posted April 12, 2006 01:30 PM |
|
Edited by Loknar on 12 Apr 2006
|
Truth and Living History
ValeriyQuote:
If one of the participants goes and modifies one of the historic responses to a today's one, what's the worth of that history, where's truth in that?
Of course you can treat a forum as a collection of books that fossilize after a given time. But you don't have to, and to some users - as me and Korejora, up to now - the forum seems to lose some of its unique charm if you do. For me, this is a petrification of something that could live on and change in time (all are interdependent).
That is the truth of an actually living history, one where the authors are still present, and its worth lies in reflecting the present and the past, being true to the identity of a present author. If the posters are gone, they don't edit and delete anymore. Then, they do not speak any more and their thoughts have only an existence as books - or none, thus becoming dead history (apart from being read). And they are freezed in the moment they leave. But when a thread is revived and the discussion goes on, I'd like to be present as the one I am now. (Btw you have accepted this argument with the avatars and again many thanks for it.) In most cases, I don't mind being the same as I was when I wrote it and just let go. And if the wording of my contribution is important enough that somebody quotes it, the original becomes part of the community and is beyond my will. (This is enough regulation of what can be changed and what cannot be imho.) But why do you want to condemn me to have my grammar mistakes follow me on my entire live at HC? Why do you want to force me to make them part of an eternal HC identity I must carry with me? In RL, people forget at least.
Quote:
Why shouldn't people find out what I was like a few years ago? We fear being judged for who we were and so we want to lie. I think editing an old post which people responded to is making a lie - pretending that you've said something else, that you were someone else at the time.
You can also have developed and see from a distance. A distance btw that is also the perspective of the new HC members who might be interested in old threads. It is true that the authenticity of the communication is one of its values, but so are concentration, clarity, fun and a lot of other values that can be actually raised by editing. (And sense can sometimes be reinstated by deletion. ) If you give additional thought to it, that is - and if you don't and spam, you don't edit and delete. (The spammers will certainly not find this the terrible cut I do.) And one question troubles me: Why do you moralize change so much and in such a negative way (lie)? There are many possible intentions why you would want to change an old post - not only negative ones like fear, but also a strive to be better understood. I just don't understand why you assume so much ill will.
And I also lack a statistical detail that would be interesting: How many truly invaluable posts has HC lost by amoks in the Xarfax style? Does the loss really justify such a price?
[future edit/delete: I have rephrased my first post and would be happy if you took the time to read it again. Please understand my disappointment that after my endeavor to extend editing possibilities, you cut them so severly.  ]
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted April 12, 2006 03:23 PM |
|
Edited by dimis on 12 Apr 2006
|
In favour of minor changes ...
I am glad someone mentioned the distinction between author and sharing to the community - I think it was Loknar. I have the same point of view on that: Author has the "mental" rights for his/her posts and is the "father/mother" of the ideas that underlie a specific post. However, once this post is brought to public, these ideas are shared and are documents. Hence, even if the person removes them from the forum, these should stay - but always reminding to the other members who was behind those posts. Moreover, if this person wants to remove posts vital for the community (similar to what seems to be a recent incident), I think we should respect that and not place them back under the name of the author. Perhaps a "fake" account is more appropriate to be used for that reason only (give him a shield and not a sword under his avatar ) and again DO NOT FORGET to remind the originating poster.
Quote:
The time period for editing/deleting of a standard post could be 3 or 6 months or whatever we decide it to be.
I don't know much about other forums but I mainly visit the Library, so I judge with respect to my experience there. I think that for the vast majority of posts this is ok, BUT there are posts that are edited as time goes by. As an example you can view my 2nd post from the top here, where you can see that I prefer to keep a log of the status of the ongoing "project". And I don't think this has anything to do with me lying. I just prefer to write that way so as to be as compact as possible and reduce the amount of spam as possible on a thread. I also maintain the dates of my various edits so that anyone can have that handy. Moreover, I am NOT going to make an edit on that post till summer, since I don't have enough time at the time being to be as specific as I want. On the other hand I must admit that I 've not seen so far anyone else doing something similar, so I guess I can live without that option. Getting along, I think that a user should be able to correct spelling/grammatical errors so as to express his/her-self better which is no lye at all. In the long run, I am 50+% with you on placing a timestamp on the posts and after a period of time they switch to a read-only status. Perhaps this urges people to contribute more on the community as well, since they will go through revisions. Of course, a trick will show up soon: A person "virtually" edits one of his posts but adds NOTHING and as a result re-initializes the timestamp for a specific post.
Quote:
For posts that are given a QP, the deletion could be disabled and editing period shortened to for example 1 month.
Of course there should be a way to restore the post in case it is edited to the "blank" post.
Quote:
Also it would be reasonable to make a QP with editing allowance - a kind of QP that allows the author to edit that particular post indefinitely. That kind of QP could be used for lists.
Summing up:
I think incidents similar to the latest in Library are not going to occur periodically and on a standard basis. So, I think there is much time ahead to figure out the best possible solution for the best interest of this forum/community. As stated already, this incident is made to think about ongoing matters and rules that probably need revision in the forum. Things that are crystal clear to me:
1) +QP posts should be maintained in the forum (reference: my 2 previous posts).
2) Opening post can not be catenated down to nothing (blank). Perhaps a useful feature might be an "Add only" function on the initial post. Possibly create 2 classes of posts:
a) Normal posts,
b) List posts,
so that lists are edited indefinately and not only additively.
3) What ever needs redesign should take into account MODs where the changes should affect if possible to a minimum extent (ideally: no additional workload for them).
I also like the idea of reverse floodprotect by Binabik but want to discuss about the various parameters.
EDIT: I also find very interesting Loknar's idea of enumerating the various posts in each thread. EOE
As for my feelings regarding the person that practically initiated this interesting conversation, you can find them on another thread.
Best regards,
- dimis -
____________
The empty set
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted April 12, 2006 04:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Also it would be reasonable to make a QP with editing allowance - a kind of QP that allows the author to edit that particular post indefinitely. That kind of QP could be used for lists.
Yep, that's what I was about to say. Some +qps are based on editing (i.e. "list of qp" threads, or some strategy threads that keep getting updated with the new info) As a matter of fact, I think most +qp threads may need editing.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted April 12, 2006 04:45 PM |
|
|
~Debate War~
 "Today the guns are silent. A great tragedy has ended. We have known the bitterness of defeat and the exultation of triumph, and from both we have learned there can be no turning back. We must go forward to preserve in peace what we've won in war."
~General Douglas MacArthur
It is right that we should discuss such questions as "Who Owns Posts" . . . and I think we've had plenty of helpful opinions. Thanks to everyone who really cares about Heroes Community.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Xarfax111
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
The last hero standing
|
|
posted April 12, 2006 11:12 PM |
|
|
Sometimes life is very simple:
I posted in the Library cause i had fun in sharing things about my favorite game.
Current peeps there are no fun so i dont want to share any longer, as simple as this.
Instead of not accepting this, and restoring my posts, the people should make their own threads, as simple as this.
____________
|
|
Loknar
Adventuring Hero
Missing Links
|
|
posted April 12, 2006 11:33 PM |
|
Edited by Loknar on 12 Apr 2006
|
Xarfax
You are aware that by that you bring a loss to the whole community - many of which think high of you (as myself) without ever having directly communicated with you?
And my loss is double, since because of you we now also have that edit/delete loss going on. And you have the boldness to march in here to tell me our discussion is pointless? You really got nerves. To me, it looks as if you're taking a lot more away than you could ever bring in. In case you didn't notice: Your noisy exodus has produced quite a bit of collateral damage.
But quite apart from that: I can picture your anger. But is that triumph really worth shading all the fun you had at HC?
Please rethink your position. I'm sure you would do yourself a favour and the community. (And I pray me doubbly.)
Quote:
Valeryi will do whatever he wants, and knew what he will do before this thread has startet. Thats the way he does it.
This is simply not true. Read the HC Renovation thread to see how he reacted to a wish concerning the avatars that he had opposed before.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 12, 2006 11:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
...I posted in the Library cause i had fun in sharing things about my favorite game.
Current peeps there are no fun so i dont want to share any longer, as simple as this....
Acceptable statement, but in my eyes wrong behaviour. Coz with deleting the "older" posts, u also made your "former buddies" unable to read these informations (again), and also new guys who didnīt do any bad stuff to you so far, canīt read them anymore. So 2/3 of the people you "hit" with that action are the wrong ones.
To stop travelling in a certain direction and turn into a differnt is one thing.
But to walk the whole way back and destroy everything is another.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 13, 2006 12:20 AM |
|
|
You get an invitation from a friend who is having a party. The host requests that people attending contribute to the success of the party by bringing a bottle of wine.
The night of the party, everyone brings their bottle of wine. Some of the wine is quite good. Some of it is not so good. But everyone contributes in their own way.
After the party has been going a while, people gradually begin to leave. You are getting a bit tired, and most of your friends have gone. You don't have much in common with most of the people remaining, although a few seem interesting. But since you are tired, you decide it's time to leave.
Your bottle of wine was one of the better ones. So do you take what remains of your bottle when you leave? Do you leave it for some of the ones who brought the cheap wine, so they can savor the flavor of a fine wine, even knowing they might not know the difference? Or maybe you leave it for the host as gratitude for inviting you to the party?
I've been in situations like this. I've left the bottle and I've taken the bottle. But when I've taken the bottle I never really felt right about it.
____________
|
| |
|
|
