Edit Discussion

[Don Muerto]

Oops I meant "Preview"

[Nightterror]

Bring edit back. Within the context of this board, none of the arguments against being able to edit posts holds water.

Drip drip drip drip drip drip


Is it so difficult to think before you speak. We grow by learning from our mistakes not by going back and covering them up. You might as well put a parachute on a wheelchair.

[Don Muerto]

Oh, you're right. We must sacrifice clarity in order to achieve enlightenment.

I will go study your parachute koan now.

[Nightterror]

Sadartha would support an edit function.

and sadly I am afraid enlightenment cannot be achieved on the Eplaya - but that does preclude one from making the journey.

[Bay Bridge Sue]

But... but... but... I voted for no editing, and now I want to edit my vote.

I just wish that the thing were open again, editing allowed or not... there's a lot of virgins out there who need help putting on the "afflicted and jaded newbie" look...

I'm just glad they got the wild wrap thing under control.

BBS

[Don Muerto]

[edit by proxy for Nightterror]

Oops, I meant "Siddhartha" and "...but that does not preclude..."

~~

I am slowly coming to see your point, Mr. Terror

[Nightterror]

Don - thank you for pulling the rip cord.

Why do you care so much about me that you feel compelled to edit me. Is it because you have something to prove.

And do you see now - by having you to edit me I no longer am concerned about what I post. I have become lazy about what I write because I can just go back and edit it. Is this the clarity you were seeking?

Have you not proven my point for me?

[Badger]

Gotta say Don distilled it down for me.

My immediate response is: if someone thinks their words may have future monetary value, then they shouldn't put them into the public domain.

However, I'd be interested to hear someone with experience in copyright law weigh in on this subject.

Regarding the other question re. publishing and copyright. I put it out there because there was on individual who sort of crept into the forums. Swell guy who had a pencahnt for writing. He'd never done it before but took to it like a duck to water. Over the years his words were looked forward to by many in the community. Amazingly articulate, wonderfully sharp and focused, his prose just sort popped out when writing about damn near any subject. More than a few peple encouraged him to try writing professionally and perhaps publish. Eventually he was convinced and followed the muse. He did take a few of the things posted on the Well (as have many others) and published. To my knowledge it was never an issue with the board nor was he so selfish that he erased what so many of us had come to love and relish so ina lot of ways the issue doesn't apply to his example. But remembering it I found myself asking the 'what ifs.' What if I started writing with no intent of ever publishing *but* were to be convinced to publish. Would I be within my rights to ask that the words - my words - be removed/erase/retracted? I don't know. Perhaps this isn't the time to bring it up but I do think there are some tangential issues that come into play when we discuss 'ownership' of our words/thoughts/ideas.

[Don Muerto]

<edit:Nightterror>

Don, {ill-advised extension of earlier inscrutable joke}.

Why do you care so much about me that you feel compelled to edit me? Is it because you have something to prove?

And do you see now - by having you to edit me I no longer am concerned about what I post? I have become lazy about what I write because I can just go back and have you edit it. Is this the clarity you were seeking?

Have you not proven my point for me?

</edit:Nightterror>

I agree there is a causal link between the grammatical errors in your posts and me editing them, but it isn't the one you are trying to posit.

The point, Dear Terror, is that even champions of the "think before you speak" camp are prone to error in posting on this forum. For that reason, I say you have invalidated your own argument that being unable to edit forces good form.

Be generous for a moment and concede this point, you may rescind later. What other compelling argument is there for disallowing people to edit their posts?

[III]

>What other compelling argument is there for disallowing people to edit their posts?


isn't one of the spirit of burning man things about subjugation of free will?

[Don Muerto]

Hmmm...not sure about that.

On a related note, if TPTB do not grant us the ability to edit, we can always edit each other's posts in the Spirit of Burningman. You know, like gifting good grammar.

"Here, brah, your participle was dangling."

[synchronicity]

(Newby checks shoe...)
Did I step in something?

[Don Muerto]

It's just melted raver, Bud-lite takes it right off.

[synchronicity]

FINALLY - A use for lite beer.

[theCryptofishist]

Don, Don, Don
You know (I hope) that you I have great respect for you and find your insights to be pertinent, insightful and provocative. Not to mention the killer avatar and that wonderful tagline. There is a good, solid reason why eplayans should be careful correcting the grammar of others.

I agree there is a causal link between the grammatical errors in your posts and <edit Don Muerto>my</edit Don Muerto> editing them, but it isn't the one you are trying to posit.

Do we say "I can't stand him singing in the shower," or do we say "I can't stand his singing in the shower"? Well, you have to decide what you find objectionable: is it him, the fact that he is singing in the shower, or is it the singing that is being done by him that you can't stand? Chances are, it's the latter, it's the singing that belongs to him that bugs you. So we would say, "I can't stand his singing in the shower."

On the other hand, do we say "I noticed your standing in the alley last night"? Probably not, because it's not the action that we noticed; it's the person. So we'd say and write, instead, "I noticed you standing in the alley last night." Usually, however, when a noun or pronoun precedes a gerund, that noun or pronoun takes a possessive form.

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/gerunds.htm

[Don Muerto]

<edit:theCryptofishist>

You know (I hope) that {deleted} I have great respect for you

</edit:theCryptofishist>

Darling, you must be skimming the argument. I am all FOR the use of edit to correct mistakes in my posts, -I am not claiming to be a better writer than anybody else.

I corrected NT's posts not out of snarkiness, but as an illustration that the inability to edit does NOT force people to post with better form or clarity even when they have a point to prove by doing so.

[Nightterror]

Dearest Don dear sweety darling

My incorrect post was intentional to illustrate the fact that an edit function will only confuse the situation.

You Dear Don dear darling - corrected my post within seconds of my engaging the submit button. If I were able to edit that post, the next individual to enter the conversation would see my post correct and you looking like a total ass or is that dear ass.

So in conclusion, having an edit function will not increase clarity, will not improve the quality of conversation, and will not keep you from looking like an ass.

[Don Muerto]

I am not sure what personalizing the issue does for you, but from where I am standing it does nothing to prove your point.

To wit:

If I were able to edit that post, the next individual to enter the conversation would see my post correct and you looking like a total ass or is that dear ass.

So in conclusion, having an edit function will not increase clarity

It would increase *your* clarity would it not? Isn't that how you expect to make an ass of me, -by clarifying and therefore making my subsequent proxy-edits look mistaken? One could argue that only an imbecile would be unable to figure out the sequence of events, but trust me when I say I have no interest in an ongoing editing relationship with you.

Cordially,
Don

[Nightterror]

but trust me when I say I have no interest in an ongoing editing relationship with you.

Cordially,
Don

Don Dear - on this point we agree.

[Don Muerto]

Ooops, I meant "editorial."

[spectabillis]

Would I be within my rights to ask that the words - my words - be removed/erase/retracted? I don't know. Perhaps this isn't the time to bring it up but I do think there are some tangential issues that come into play when we discuss 'ownership' of our words/thoughts/ideas.

The only example that I can think of is a potential writer posting their experience in the form of a story. The publisher will bring up copyright issues with them and ask if they have posted or released the work somewhere else. I am absolutely for allowing them to delete the post.

Is that what you mean by 'ownership'? Or am I compltely off on this?

[antron]

simply applying using a technology to solve a social problem is a bad idea in most circumstances, and inhibiting editing is an excellent example.

deceptive or manipulative user abuse of editing is a social problem. the technical solution is to stop them from editing. unfortunately the blowback is bigger than the problem.

preventing me from correcting the post where i was unable to catch my elision creates a social problem. the problem that it creates is that my mistake remains frozen, and unless i undertake to re-post the whole thing with a correction, will stand.

i would like to read your best words whenever they come to you, not the ones that happened to make it onto the page when you pressed submit the first time.

[Nightterror]

simply by catching an elition will neither create deception nor manipulate the technical problem. moreover, mere prevention stimulates the social solution which I agree fails to ihibit a bigger blowback.

suspended animation of ones written thoughts is, unfortunately, the biproduct of a limited social expectation created by those users that remain unable to postulate to their own satisfaction.

[spectabillis]

simply applying using a technology to solve a social problem is a bad idea in most circumstances, and inhibiting editing is an excellent example.

Its being used to help solve a social problem, it's not being relied upon to solve it automatically - thats up to the people who use it.

deceptive or manipulative user abuse of editing is a social problem. the technical solution is to stop them from editing. unfortunately the blowback is bigger than the problem.

There is a risk, but I dont think its fair to punish everyone who wants it for a very select few that may abuse it.

[/b]

[Zane5100]

I dont think its fair to punish everyone who wants it for a very select few that may abuse it.

I agree.

[Don Muerto]

With the exceptions duly noted, the majority of responses have been pro-edit and the poll has consistently been above 80% for bringing edit back.

What are the next steps in moving this forward?

[spectabillis]

What are the next steps in moving this forward?

Probably to get it confirmed on the etf list, then implemented if/when someone has the time.

[Don Muerto]

Cool, and that comes right after the reverse inverted one and a half twist QRT environment which I find really rectifies the sine-tweak on the subterranean optic graphic output, in A-minor, -usually.

Right?

[spectabillis]

Cool, and that comes right after the reverse inverted one and a half twist QRT environment which I find really rectifies the sine-tweak on the subterranean optic graphic output, in A-minor, -usually.

Right?

No, its collective channeling with a Ouija board approach.

[Nightterror]

edit by proforma for Don

optic graphic output can only be achieved in B-minor