As a follow-up to my recent post on the previous page (regarding a less than 24 hour post that I am surprisingly unable to edit), I would add the point that while the editing of posts is imposed on posters on the basis of presumably addressing SPAM (which to me does not really address the reasoning behind the imposition anyway), there is apparently no restriction posting entirely new posts as many times as you want in very old (month+) topics (with inactivity spanning several months of time) which would arguably be far more applicable to SPAM issues as opposed to imposing a restrictions on posters editing their own posts involving a very short time-frame restriction from the time the comment was originally posted. I would argue that because the editing of posts is restricted exclusively to the OP and no one else the issue of SPAM DOES NOT APPLY. The simple question to ask is how is this restriction applicable regarding what reportedly makes this editing restriction necessary?, (based on what I would characterize as a specious pretext of reducing SPAM) and therefore the reasoning here involves arguably an erroneous conclusion simply on the basis that it makes virtually no sense that a poster would want to SPAM their own post! On the other hand, one could reasonably argue that posting in very old relatively inactive topics would perhaps be more applicable to addressing SPAM, but even then the benefits of leaving a topic open to discussion far out weigh the rare situations that might arise involving potential SPAM in these cases as well.Moonchild wrote: 2. Limits on time allowed to edit or delete your own posts
So I have to say from my perspective, I'm personally apposed to restrictions in either case for the reasons below:
1) Restricting an OP from editing their own post (which keep in mind is the ONLY person who can edit the post) would in my view not be applicable to SPAM issues simply based on the question: why would the person who posted the comment want to SPAM their own comment?
2) Restricting the ability for posters to edit their own posts is far too restrictive in regards to the expressing comments that specifically apply to a forum in the first place simply based on the fact that a poster should have the right to edit what has been expressed by themselves at any time w/out restriction imo.
3) I am not aware of any other forums that are imposing this same restriction as far as restricting posters from editing their own posts (and if there are, I'd have to say based on experience it must be rare).
4) In my opinion the restriction that only the poster can edit their own comments that is already universally applied throughout all forums is all that is really needed to address SPAM issues in this regard and is, among other reasons, the very reason why this restriction has been universally applied.
5) And lastly, while I've made the argument that restricting the ability to post in very old inactive topics which is not currently imposed at all would be far more applicable to any potential issues regarding SPAM I would still make the point that even this restriction is not really necessary and the negative impact would out weigh any perceived benefit because doing this would prevent posters from adding useful comments to a topic regardless of when the comment is posted.
Conclusion, even if the opinion that a restriction does need to be imposed on posters editing their own posts (which in my view is in conflict with other opinions expressed as to what is defined by an "open forum"), I would still argue that less than a 24-hour period of time is not an adequate time-frame in regards to comments that are already limited to the specific poster of those very comments in the first place.