On another board I've seen the simple and yet elegant solution of keeping an edit history. Anyone can edit their own posts and any time. And anyone else can click on the edit history to see what the content used to be.

It's amazing how many arguments get avoided.

On another board I've seen the simple and yet elegant solution of keeping an edit history. Anyone can edit their own posts and any time. And anyone else can click on the edit history to see what the content used to be.

(Oh, how I hate running out of votes before the end of the day -- I'd love to have another ++ on hand for this.)

This technical solution effectively supplements the social sanctions we already have. Sure, you can delete your post or retract an overly broad claim, but everyone will see you doing so.

A good memory is part of building a rich community; people can improve on a bad reputation, but they shouldn't be able to make people forget how they've behaved in the past.

I hadn't intended this as a punishment... possibly, I did a bad job explaining my point... possibly it's simply a bad idea.

Keeping an edit history would be a very good idea... unfornatly, it's also fairly difficult. Both, it would be difficult to add to the existing archetecure in a clean matter, and it would take a lot of db space and energy, unless implemented very carefuly.

---

Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).

I have no idea how hard it would be to add to the existing architecture. But the db space isn't that bad. Or at least no worse than letting a few more people post. (My guess is that when people see that a history of changes are left, they won't be as inclined to make cosmetic corrections.)

And whether or not your idea is meant as a punishment, the people who wind up restricted will feel punished.

I think social sanctions are better than technological ones in this case. Downvote and move on. Restore the content where appropriate. BTW, I think it was appropriate that castaway restored the content of the nodes in that thread earlier. It is pretty much always appropriate where there are responses that are left without context.

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

I think it was appropriate that castaway restored the content of the nodes in that thread earlier. It is pretty much always appropriate where there are responses that are left without context.

If you want to live dangerously by not quoting what you are replying to, you shouldn't complain if the content you are replying to disappears. If you quote, there's no problem. Even a small update can change the thing you are replying to.

Abigail

If you want to live dangerously by not quoting what you are replying to, you shouldn't complain if the content you are replying to disappears.

Agreed. And, generally, I do. But that's no argument against restoring content.

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

I thought of this as more a keep-them-from-doing-it-again then a you-were-naughty-so-no-desert. The idea is that once you have to restore the content, which is a combination of a lot of work and a lot of luck, you won't have to do it for that person again.

---

Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).

you won't have to do it for that person again.

How may repeat offenders do we have? It seems to me that if someone is so concerned about his XP that he tries to remove content to avoid downvotes, then he'll probably learn pretty quickly that that approach doesn't work. Especially when the content just reappears.

You can frame it as saving-work-for-the-editors, but it is still a punishment. And it would significantly impact the ease of posting for those so sanctioned. Downvotes and comments about the immaturity and ineffectuality of content removal are likely to go a lot further.

If we really do have a significant number of people who do this repeatedly, then maybe it would be worth implementing. But then there should also be some way of tracking how many times they did it because removing a privilege like that shouldn't be done until there are at least three strikes (and by that I mean incidents, not nodes.) Also, I'd think this sort of power would properly reside with the gods only, not the editors.

I really don't think this is a good idea in any case though.

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

There was a suggestion recently, to disallow editing completely after a certain time period, which I find more sensible. (It won't catch all this sort of problem, of course, depending upon the time period chosen, but hopefully some.)

Since there is already an edit history, maybe allowing users to view previous versions of nodes would also discourage this, as tilly just suggested..

C.

I doubt they'll actually notice the ability has been removed, unless they node edit often.. does anyone?

I do. I sometimes make cosmetic corrections to my nodes long, long after ther fact. I also very frequently make minor additions to nodes I posted just a short while ago. I won't change content to rewrite history, but I'm glad I can freely improve nodes when I feel the urge.

Makeshifts last the longest.

But to install a full edit-history just to see when & how I edited my typing errors ... It seems a bit over the top to me.

The same goes for the installation of a big brother style police force. Yes it is a pain to see the content of nodes disappear, but no it does not break the spirit of our community. The Monastery is far more resilient than that.

As I see it, the deletion of the entire content of a node doesn't happen too much. In case it does, it's most likely done by a user that's quite new to this site. The node will be massively downvoted and -most likely- there will be some comment on it. This will show the new user that, instead of deleting it, he can better use <strike> tags and/or an Update paragraph.

Of course a style of American law enforcement could be implemented, where the offender will (be locked up with a tripple life sentence and) never ever get a chance to learn from his mistakes and try again, but I'd favor the more liberal approach to it of letting it slide. The comments and downvotes should tell the abuser enough. If it doesn't help, just ignore the user :)