Admin Editing Posts

[naomi24]

Twice today my posts have been edited. Is this a new policy? If so, I think it should be re-examined. I for one am not happy for other people to change what I've written. That simply isn't right.

[Theland]

Quite. My gender could be edited to suit the prevailing mindset, and I would have to buy a frock.

[THECORBYLOON]

Perhaps the EDs will reconsider the edit option and delete offending posts in future.

[naomi24]

They already delete offending posts. Changing posts that don't offend is a new innovation.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // No one should take it upon themselves to change what someone else has said. Utterly wrong. //

The response indicates that what was posted was not changed, it was edited, which not the same thing.

[ladybirder]

I agree, better deleted than altered.
It looks as if it is not the Ed who alters a post, but a mod? If we have to report any such instance to the Ed then it's not the Ed altering it which is even worse if that's possible.

[Mamyalynne]

Moderators cannot alter/edit.

If a post contains useful content and also refers to a removed answer, then as I read Spare Ed's reply - the part referring to the removed answer is deleted from the reply.

Obviously it appears some would rather the whole reply went.

[ummmm]

If the mods can't see reports I can't see how they can edit posts.

[Zacs-Master]

For what it's worth, I'd be more in favor of a thread being deleted rather than the edited (in whatever way, for whatever reason).

[naomi24]

AH, I know what editing is, and it shouldn't have been. I said what I said because I wanted to say it - and what I said broke no rules. That is not a good direction for the AnswerBank to take.

[andy-hughes]

Theland - // It's the way of the world, a little authority brings political correctness, as is the case here, especially the remark that discussion not allowed. Yuck.
The Commissars have spoken. //

I think your approach is a little disingenuous.

If the Editorial Team were to enter into an exchange of posts about every deleted post, they would be here twenty-four seven.

Some merit discussion, some do not, but in order to run the site efficiently, a decision has been made to apply a unilateral rule for everyone, so that everyone is treated exactly the same.

This approach is clearly based on best use of time, and most fair approach to all concerned, and your implication that it is done for reasons of simple abuse of power is not warranted, or accurate.

[diddlydo]

For once I actually agree with Naomi. Posts should not be edited. Neither should posts be removed just because the Mod/Editor/Spare Ed doesn't like them because of some prejudice on their part, rather than because of Site Rules, which is what seems to have been happening recently. The only time I emailed the Ed I got no reply so what's the point?

[naomi24]

That's me done on this thread. Thanks for your responses everyone.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // AH, I know what editing is, and it shouldn't have been. I said what I said because I wanted to say it - and what I said broke no rules. That is not a good direction for the AnswerBank to take. //

Your opinion is that you broke no rules, and from what I understand of SE's response, he or she did not see it the same way, and since it is the Editorial Team who run the site, their view clearly takes precedence, you would expect nothing else I am sure.

You clearly disagree with the decision, but for reasons I explained to Theland, you are unlikely to receive any further comment about it

[THECORBYLOON]

No doubt many feel their deleted posts did not break the Site Rules but the ultimate interpretation of the rules is not a matter for them, is it?

[retrocop]

//Your opinion is that you broke no rules, and from what I understand of SE's response, he or she did not see it the same way, and since it is the Editorial Team who run the site, their view clearly takes precedence, you would expect nothing else I am sure. //

Who is SE please?

[andy-hughes]

diddlydo - // Posts should not be edited. Neither should posts be removed just because the Mod/Editor/Spare Ed doesn't like them because of some prejudice on their part, rather than because of Site Rules, which is what seems to have been happening recently. //

Posts are not removed because of any personal prejudices on behalf of the Editorial Team, or the Moderators.

Moderators are identified on each action they take, and they are required to provide an explanation for a deletion, suspension or ban, and these have on occasion been overturned if the Editorial team does not think the action is appropriate.

// The only time I emailed the Ed I got no reply so what's the point? //

As has been advised many times, the Editorial Team respond to each e-mail they receive, if they have not replied, it is because they have not received your mail - why not try re-sending?

[andy-hughes]

retrocop - //Who is SE please? //

The Spare Editor.

[woofgang]

Spare Ed

[diddlydo]

It seems pretty obvious to me that the Mods/Eds etc are trying to do a party political broadcast on behalf of the Tories.

[andy-hughes]

The Corbyloon - // No doubt many feel their deleted posts did not break the Site Rules but the ultimate interpretation of the rules is not a matter for them, is it? //

No, it's for the Editorial Team, and has been since the site's inception.

If people are unhappy with the governance of the site, there are other less or indeed un-moderated sites they can use, but if we post on here, we abide by the rules which are simple, clear, and for the great benefit of all users.