More spam protection measures.

[Pallid Planetoid]

2. Limits on time allowed to edit or delete your own posts

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.

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.

[Moonchild]

The editing limit is 2 hours, which should be enough for anything that needs editing. After 2 hours it's very likely that people have already read the post and/or replied to it, in which case it'd be better to make your additions in a follow-up comment.

It has nothing at all to do with how open a forum is, either, and trying to give it that twist is just petty, IMHO.
We're doing this, not necessarily because of spam this time, but because people are displaying too much destructive behavior if left to edit any of their posts at will, including losing their nerve before even a day has passed.

[Pallid Planetoid]

Thanks for the reply, so then since the editing restriction is such a relatively short time-frame perhaps clarification on this by stipulating this 2-hour restriction in point #2 would be helpful. Just a friendly suggestion.

As to this change I would point out that whenever a topic has been replied when an edit has been made then the post has a notation at the bottom that it has been edited and of course the 2-hour restriction is rather arbitrary anyway because a post may or may not be replied to within that time-frame. I can perhaps understand restricting the actual deletion of an entire post, but as far as restricting the editing of a post from my perspective I find this can very often potentially add to far more confusion in many ways as contrasted to what in my opinion are the far more limited benefits such as they are.

Please do read my explanation below thoroughly and with an "open mind" as I'm sure you do anyway Moonchild.

Example (which has involved myself with my mistake-prone habits at my age especially): I have a post that is totally incorrect and misleading (I either didn't understand what I was replying to or missed the entire point for some reason for example).

You're suggesting that I be restricted to posting changes to that post in a subsequent post to correct this. Well as you know this might actually occur on a subsequent page before I get back to correcting the errors of my ways.

So I think you can see the problem, other posters reading this can be mislead and of course not even be aware of the correction I've posted that may even be on another subsequent page.

Bottom line: I've found myself going back and striking out comments (and correcting as well) whenever I've been pointed out my mistake or realized the error on my own. By having the ability to do this I obviously prevent any potential confusion or misdirection on my part and totally eliminate the risk of leading someone in the wrong direction.

I know you may say that people reading the topic should continue to read on, but seriously if a person finds an answer they think (on the surface at the time) will help (and in this case my example does not help but is actually harmful as a misleading and incorrect post) then how many times do you think that person will continue to actually read on? I'm sure you understand human-nature (as a former psychologist in my earlier career I know) a person will in general go with an answer that they think will get them the results they wanted based on what they read at that time and simply not bother at all to read on.... Really when you think about it, why would they even be inclined to read on?....

What you are suggesting is that everyone will need to continue to read throughout an entire topic to the end to make sure that what they might have found posted is accurate.

Clearly the ability to go back and both strike-out and modify a post to correct something that is absolutely incorrect is in many ways far more helpful and expedient to all than to be concerned about someone posting "destructive behavior if left to edit any of their posts at will" as you characterized the reasoning behind this restriction and that would include as well "losing their nerve before even a day has passed" as you suggest might be the case.

I think you would agree that the best approach is always to look back on a decision that is made to change something with an open mind so that all aspects of how that decision impacts in so many ways that may have not been considered thoroughly at the time in regards to the potential numerous ramifications that result from that change.

You have clarified that the change was not necessarily due to SPAM and in my view makes sense as pointed out. I hope you can see my point that the other reasons you've mentioned having to do with "destructive behavior" or "losing their nerve" do not stand up in any consequential way to my point that by forcing posters to not be able to correct glaring errors right on the very post where the issue exists but rather require corrections to incorrect post be made in a subsequent post perhaps even pages later can clearly be potentially far more "destructive" by leading a person in the wrong direction which contrast that to the ability to strike-out and/or correct the inaccurate and misleading narrative posted addresses the issue of an incorrect post in a most assuredly far more efficient, practical and effective manner.

With all that I've sincerely presented here to be taken as constructive suggestions, I'm hopeful you will reevaluate this change made regarding the editing of posts.

I would like to add on more thing (apparently I'm under the wire since I'm here typing) and that is I personally think the world of Pale Moon and you Moonchild and anyone else on your development team. As all of us fans of Pale Moon feel, we appreciate what you do and your approach and I can be assured I can speak for everyone how we are so thankful to you especially for making Pale Moon possible for us users who know and understand how far superior the browser is to other browsers. Just wanted to say that which I'm sure you must already know actually.

[Moonchild]

Look, you can elaborate all you want and try to reason your way around trying to convince me or other staff of what you think is the need to keep open editing of all posts, forever, but the plain matter of fact is that it remains only one side of the story for running a forum which deals with more than just you as a user, and deals also with people who are destructive, abusive, and at increasingly higher levels of deception to try and spam/backlink to use this forum as a platform for advertising/SEO.

Example: You think people wouldn't want to spam their own posts? You are very, very wrong. A common tactic is for spammer lackeys to come into fora, make one or a few minimal/average posts (some even trying to literally copy/paste older posts which can be hard to spot by staff) and then go back in after approval to change the post contents to their spam content.

Example: see a few threads where disgruntled forum users, when leaving, have gone in and destroyed their own posts just to be destructive, making proper and informative discussion threads be so disjointed that they have become useless.

I also disagree that editing and editing and editing your posts some more to change the content of it reduces confusion. Quite the opposite: if you change established dialogue in a thread by changing post contents, you not only get responses that don't apply, but can even create conversations that are absolutely incorrect and can be abused to have people seemingly say the opposite of what they did when they posted.

Example of misleading information as a result:
A "Is Pale Moon Open Source?" B "Yes it is, it's always been that way"
EDIT after the post was replied to:
A "Is Pale Moon commercial software?" B "Yes it is, it's always been that way"
This makes B look like they are being incorrect in their posting, and in case of official responses may send the absolute wrong message to the public coming in at a later time.

In short: open editing has too much potential for abuse. 2 hours is plenty for the poster to make edits.

[Pallid Planetoid]

Okay, thanks for listening. (you're points are most definitely good ones! ... that I btw clearly failed to consider. ) This is why Pale Moon is as good as it is, a decidedly more broad spectrum of perspective at play, thanks!!