|
Grex > Coop > #278: Grex Town Hall -- How do we move forward? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
lar
|
|
response 131 of 357:
| 
Jun 23 23:19 UTC 2010 |
I don't see why slynne is worried,her posts look just as stupid in
context as out
|
mary
|
|
response 132 of 357:
|
Jun 23 23:27 UTC 2010 |
How would this go? Say slynne entered a response in responding to
something tod entered. In her response she copied tod's comment. tod
comes back and some point and removes all of his posts. Do tod's words in
slynne's response get immunity from deletion?
I don't know why but I think this may come up. ;-)
|
mary
|
|
response 133 of 357:
|
Jun 23 23:30 UTC 2010 |
See, I told you I couldn't proof read worth squat.
|
tonster
|
|
response 134 of 357:
|
Jun 24 12:46 UTC 2010 |
resp:132: tod's words in slynnes response would not be removed, nor
should they. I doubt very much any software that allows quoting would
have the ability to remove such things.
|
tod
|
|
response 135 of 357:
|
Jun 24 13:19 UTC 2010 |
Yea, like if I entered an item about breastmilk then I couldn't go and
erase what slynne duplicated from me in her own responses?
Maybe you could setup privileged censorship commands for friends of grex
board members so a few folks could go and do that while the rest can
go eat a hat.
What if I started an item about divorces and then said a bunch of things
and later wanted the entire discussions removed. That would be the
perfect example of an increased privilege erase command.
Not that those things have ever happened before
*COUGH*
|
kentn
|
|
response 136 of 357:
|
Jun 24 14:12 UTC 2010 |
Even in Confer days some people quoted entire items to keep them from
being deleted by their owners. So this is quite an old issue.
Although this seems like an interesting twist, it doesn't affect the
editing discussion because this issue of quoted text could occur (and
has) even without editing. This is getting into "business policy"
territory rather than technical (although the BP might be implemented as
a technical solution). One solution is to allow moderation due to the
number of people and competing interests that might be involved. And of
course, we don't like *COUGH* moderation.
|
mary
|
|
response 137 of 357:
|
Jun 24 14:58 UTC 2010 |
Yep, making it clear that your ability to edit your words only extends to
responses you have entered sounds like a good policy. I'd support giving
users the ability to edit their responses in that case.
|
slynne
|
|
response 138 of 357:
|
Jun 24 15:05 UTC 2010 |
One thing to consider would be a time limit. One site I frequent allows
editing but only for 90 minutes after the response is entered.
|
lar
|
|
response 139 of 357:
|
Jun 24 15:35 UTC 2010 |
you lamers are so clusterfucked it's amusing
|
tonster
|
|
response 140 of 357:
|
Jun 24 15:44 UTC 2010 |
a time limit isn't possible with backtalk, so unless we switch
conferencing systems that's off the table. I absolutely support editing
of responses, as I've stated previously.
|
kentn
|
|
response 141 of 357:
|
Jun 24 15:56 UTC 2010 |
Why isn't it possible, Tony? We know the time the response was entered
since that appears in the item response. Apparently if we turn on
editing, we know the modification time (since it would go into a note
added to the response). Can't those two times be compared and editing
disallowed if the difference is more than some limit?
|
lar
|
|
response 142 of 357:
|
Jun 24 16:23 UTC 2010 |
DAMN...what clusterfucks..just allow editing of posts and be done with
it you petty motherfuckers
|
lar
|
|
response 143 of 357:
|
Jun 24 16:24 UTC 2010 |
Why?
Here's why
|
lar
|
|
response 144 of 357:
|
Jun 24 16:24 UTC 2010 |
This response has been erased.
|
lar
|
|
response 145 of 357:
|
Jun 24 16:24 UTC 2010 |
This response has been erased.
|
lar
|
|
response 146 of 357:
|
Jun 24 16:24 UTC 2010 |
This response has been erased.
|
lar
|
|
response 147 of 357:
|
Jun 24 16:25 UTC 2010 |
This response has been erased.
|
lar
|
|
response 148 of 357:
|
Jun 24 16:25 UTC 2010 |
This response has been erased.
|
lar
|
|
response 149 of 357:
|
Jun 24 16:25 UTC 2010 |
This response has been erased.
|
lar
|
|
response 150 of 357:
|
Jun 24 16:25 UTC 2010 |
This response has been erased.
|
lar
|
|
response 151 of 357:
|
Jun 24 16:25 UTC 2010 |
This response has been erased.
|
lar
|
|
response 152 of 357:
|
Jun 24 16:25 UTC 2010 |
This response has been erased.
|
lar
|
|
response 153 of 357:
|
Jun 24 16:25 UTC 2010 |
This response has been erased.
|
lar
|
|
response 154 of 357:
|
Jun 24 16:27 UTC 2010 |
This response has been erased.
|
lar
|
|
response 155 of 357:
|
Jun 24 16:27 UTC 2010 |
This response has been erased.
|