I can see there are some egregious posts a moderator justifiably removes. What I don't get is those that after some time ['way past the 15 minute edit window] somehow disappear. Recently there's been a couple by jsinjin that come to mind ..... I didn't see anything wrong with the posts and their removal makes "following along" pretty difficult. To my way of thinking once I hit the "submit/post/send" button, the post is public property ... especially after the 15 minute grace period. IF I've posted something that needs further "explanation" or I've modified my thinking, then I should explain away!!
Can a contributor edit his/her post or topic after the 15 min. without the help of a moderator?
Edited by - Owen on 10/01/2024 11:58:36
I believe a person can edit the opening post and title of a topic until the discussion is archived. So if jsinjin's disappearing posts were discussion starters, then those were in fact editable. If "editing" includes "deleting" that's something that never occurred to me.
The 15-minute editing limit was instituted many years ago for the very reason you touch on. People occasionally removed posts for a variety of personal reasons. Especially in discussions that turned into arguments. Removing posts made it impossible to understand responses, changed the entire flow of a discussion, and gave a different impression of a person's participation (or eliminated evidence of it).
Thanks Ken .... now for some "further explanation." My mistake, in the cases I mentioned jsinjin's posts weren't actually deleted .... just edited down to a word or two.
Do you know the rationale behind the "until archived" allowance? ... ditto re. the "opening post." [Why should it matter?]. Is there something I'm missing?
quote:
Originally posted by OwenDo you know the rationale behind the "until archived" allowance? ... ditto re. the "opening post." [Why should it matter?]. Is there something I'm missing?
No. I don't know the reasoning for that allowance. All I remember is the arrival of the 15 minutes editing window and maybe some discussion before it. But I don't recall specifically what was announced. And I remember not knowing until long after (as in years) that discussion starters had apparently no time limit to edit their opening posts.
The rules state that a post cannot be modified after 15 minutes. As far as I know, there are no exceptions to that rule unless a moderator/administrator deems it necessary to do so.
As far as the original post being modified by the OP, that hasn't changed and sometimes it does make reading the thread confusing. I notice that happened just today. The OPs way to get the post/thread changed and just ignore the rules when he's told we can't delete/hide/change what he wants done. It happens. After a post is changed, there no way that we mods can bring it back like original. I have no idea if admin. can do that or not. Good question for Eric.
To my thinking the 15 minute grace period sounds worthwhile, but I wonder what benefit there is to allowing anybody, including the OP, to alter a post after that. I can see updating a title [eg. when it poses a question and the question gets answered or circumstances materially change]. When that happens, I think it's usually noted and that seems logical.
If the OP already knows he/she can make the change, why would he/she bother with first asking a moderator to do it? Is he/she "ignoring" a rule, or working within a [deficient?] rule?
Edited by - Owen on 10/01/2024 15:07:47
My apologies. I didn’t know that removing a post was an activity that was frowned on. I can put them back. I continued to try and tamp down those posts and sort of contain the sprawl of advice and suggestions. There is an undercurrent of very strong feelings on this forum that one should learn banjo by listening and playing in groups.
I have my own reasons but I dislike the very idea of playing in groups or sharing with others in a group. I listen to very little music if any at all besides a few classical songs and some pop stuff my kids play in their cars. I love practice and assumed that this would be like someone learning chopan’s etudes through years of practicing details from sheet music.
I don’t really get frustrated by practice and having trouble hearing chords and certainly not know how the songs go; most of these songs are not only the first time I’ve heard them but they are the first time I’ve heard anything even remotely like them and they sound almost alien to me and quite random.
The reason I eventually took those down is because eventually someone would reach out to let me know that the only way to learn this is to completely change what I’m doing, find a group and start playing. Each time that has happened I have become despondent and very frustrated.
I like and enjoy practicing my banjo to the tune of a minimum of 90 minutes every day for multiple months now. I just want to practice and find techniques for practice that don’t involve finding a group of experts and shadowing them for years. Although publicly to my posts the push is constructive, the private responses from a few have been very dogmatic.
I’m can put those posts back as I didn’t realize there was an unwritten or written rule to leave them up for context within the forum. I’m just going to limit my posting on this forum for now.
quote:
Originally posted by jsinjinMy apologies. I didn’t know that removing a post was an activity that was frowned on. I can put them back. I continued to try and tamp down those posts and sort of contain the sprawl of advice and suggestions. There is an undercurrent of very strong feelings on this forum that one should learn banjo by listening and playing in groups.
I have my own reasons but I dislike the very idea of playing in groups or sharing with others in a group. I listen to very little music if any at all besides a few classical songs and some pop stuff my kids play in their cars. I love practice and assumed that this would be like someone learning chopan’s etudes through years of practicing details from sheet music.
I don’t really get frustrated by practice and having trouble hearing chords and certainly not know how the songs go; most of these songs are not only the first time I’ve heard them but they are the first time I’ve heard anything even remotely like them and they sound almost alien to me and quite random.
The reason I eventually took those down is because eventually someone would reach out to let me know that the only way to learn this is to completely change what I’m doing, find a group and start playing. Each time that has happened I have become despondent and very frustrated.
I like and enjoy practicing my banjo to the tune of a minimum of 90 minutes every day for multiple months now. I just want to practice and find techniques for practice that don’t involve finding a group of experts and shadowing them for years. Although publicly to my posts the push is constructive, the private responses from a few have been very dogmatic.
I’m can put those posts back as I didn’t realize there was an unwritten or written rule to leave them up for context within the forum. I’m just going to limit my posting on this forum for now.
I'm not surprised you didn't know about OPs deleting/editing original posts. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the rules and guidelines about that. It was something that was decided many years ago after a problem occurred with people changing posts after posting what was not allowed, being warned about it and ignoring the warning.
As far as people posting about playing with others, most people think if you're taking up the banjo you will want to eventually join in and play with others. if you don't want to do that, that's your business. As one of our revered members says: "It's your banjo, play it like you want to" or something to that effect. People are just trying to help you in your banjo journey. Don't take it as telling you what to do, but just suggestions as to what might help.
If you want to put the posts back, feel free.
Hey, Mom! I've just been referred to as a "revered member"!!
The actual quote was from what a local Milwaukee banjo genius, the late Ken Haferman said to me, back when he was alive, and I was TRYING to learn Clawhammer style.
I was going to do it "By The Book", or not do it at all.
And the book said to strike down with the nail of the INDEX finger.
But, I have a couple of weirdly formed fingernails. LEFT one is 3x THICKER than normal, RIGHT is twice as THIN as the rest.
So, striking the string tore the fingernail.
First time I ever saw Ken play, he was using the MIDDLE finger.
I showed him my fingernails, and explained my "By the book or not at all!" pledge,
and he (although at most a half dozen years older than my 32) said
"Kid, it's YOUR banjo. Play it any damn way you want!"
We allow the editing of original posts for one simple reason... so big posts that are indexes of other topics, etc - like Song of the Week threads... can be updated.
If anyone has better ideas I'm all ears!
Point taken Eric, re. topics that need updated when circumstances change.
My understanding is that the rules are "it depends" rules [thank you former moderator Bill]. I have no problem with that, other than it would be good to have that pointed out within the Rules &Guidelines.
An additional "guideline" could be added to the list to [strongly?] encourage posters to leave posts stand, where there has been no material change in circumstances.
As I understand things, there's already a "work around" if/when personal messages become a problem .... limit PMs to "friends." [At least that's how I think it works ... so far, I've not had to test it. ]
