Don't shit all over other people's stuff
-
So yeah, the moderators are doing a great job. I'm really happy with the service I've received.
Glad to hear it!
Wait, no...the other one.
-
You are one delicate little fellow.
You just now figuring that out?
You know the fucking reason. It has been pointed out to you multiple times.
Stop picking on my buddy blakey! If he wants to shout that the rest of the world is wrong, who are you to disagree with him?
-
-
-
Yup. But the person who runs into assholes all day will never believe he's the asshole.
I knew a woman once who'd been involved in like a dozen car accidents where she was rear-ended. She couldn't be the problem, nope, the world was full of bad drivers who'd get behind her and slam into her just because she'd brake hard without warning. Same concept.
-
Like my mother. She was married seven times and always said it was because men are all assholes. I told her that 1, 2 or three marriages might be the fault of others, but at seven times the problem was her.
-
at seven times the problem was her.
Oh--the one possible exception, if you're dealing with someone who's deliberately an asshole, like @blakeyrat, is that if you say "maybe it's you" sometimes he'll admit it, out of spite, when you say "oh, there's no way they'd ever admit it".
-
He doesn't care if they exist, he just doesn't want them to have the ability to edit anything but their own stuff.
And he's absolutely correct in that that is the way things should be.Moderators, of course, should be allowed to, as a last resort, remove or modify content. Ordinary users, no matter what contrived (and, in this case, pretty much trivial) hoops they have jumped through, should not be allowed to modify other people's content. That discourse allows this is merely more proof that Atwood is the kind of clueless fuckhole that has swallowed Wikipedia's "wisdom of the masses" Kool-Aid.
For an example of doing it right, one needs only to look back at the horrible toxic hellstew that is phpBB. If you do that, you discover that, although you can change the thread title for a reply, and that the new thread title is then shown for the reply and any non-renamed replies to it, the overall, original, thread title remains the same.
One might also note in passing that phpBB shows you which threads you have contributed to, as a part of the thread list. That's the kind of "useful" feature which could only be omitted in forum software written by someone who doesn't use forum software.
-
-
Which, weirdly, is occasionally useful
-
If someone else has not only had the exact problem you've had but also managed to ask about it in a specific enough way to not get it closed for one of 291 silly reasons.
-
So are nuclear weapons, but I'd still prefer to not inflict one on people.
-
main problem with stackoverflow is the excessive moderation, I see a pattern here
-
-
And he's absolutely correct in that that is the way things should be.
But let's be honest. Some people just want to hate on people having fun. Blakey is one of those people.
-
-
I'm going to go ahead an admit that was exactly one of the useful topics for me.
-
Was this the other one?
-
Bingo.
-
-
If the topic evolves sufficiently, I'm ok with people changing the topic.
If it becomes a flamewar, fire symbol is ok.
I don't like it when they satire the topic so much that I can't remember if it's the one I was reading.
-
-
This all calls for one of my favourite quotes from Oliver Cromwell:
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
-
I don't like it when they satire the topic so much that I can't remember if it's the one I was reading.
With the particularly egregious examples, the keyword is hoisted by the admins into the non-editable part of the title. For example, the Status and TIL threads…