Is there any good reason for the JCC's edit time to be 30 minutes?

given how often the boards are breaking down now, i think extending the edit times would be a good idea, based solely on the likelihood that the boards will break within the 30 minute edit time alloted... just sayin'.

 

Yeah longer or infinite edit times wouldn't be abused at all! I for one would never do it!

And I can't imagine the YJCC Finer Things Club with a looser policy. You guys already nitpick over the meaning of every little word while trying to one-up each other. You have research tools, spell check, and an imagination to make your arguments. That's enough.

 

. . .how exactly does one "abuse" a longer edit time?

 

Wocky: Theoretically, at least, one could edit in material against the rules into a post still editable, but past the flow of discussion, and where mods were less likely to catch it.

 

and also make the thread into complete spaghetti so only the two people editing know what was going on, and after that if other people manage to jump in, it's just chaos. That's why message boards were invented with threads instead of balls of random multi-colored yarn

 

It's not a legit concern. Most threads don't move that fast, for one. If a thread does move that fast, most JCC'ers don't edit a post once the conversation has moved on. And if someone responds to a previous version of a post, most JCC'ers readily point out that they've edited. And, if the post doesn't seem to flow with the conversation, most JCC'ers look at the last time the post was edited and easily conclude that the person is trying to be deceitful. In fact, there's a very recent instance of someone being called on it. I don't think we should be concerned about the few morons that would try (and fail) to abuse a longer edit time.

 

I've been posting on message boards for almost a decade, have never been on one that had limited edit times, and never faced this problem.

 

Some JCCers have asked me about the edit time discussion, and I'm afraid we still haven't reached an agreement. Feel free to post more arguments pro and con, please; they would be helpful.

Sorry for the delay.

 

Pro:

With a longer edit time Darth_Guy would have longer to develop his thoughts on a subject resulting in posts that look like:

Yada yada yada.




Yada history yada.




Yada yada yada.



instead of like :

Yada yada yada.



...



...




The '...' obviously being placeholders to remind him to edit in further thoughts on the subject. Frequently, he isn't able to beat the edit time. That's unfair, IMO.

 

Perfectly alright. We understand these things can take time. The update is much appreciated, though.

 

First, apologies for the double post.

The quoted post is from Dingo[b/]'s last post in the "casual racism" thread on this board, in the last week. I quoted it not for the content, but because he edited his post. That is specifically relevant in light of his earlier posts in this thread.

The issue of hypocrisy seems quite relevant here. The arguments you made aren't at all specific to an extension of the edit time--which is, in itself, something I think you need to explain--but instead, a decision to tilt your lance at the whole concept of editing. If your objection is so deeply rooted, why do you use the function yourself? As you said, why didn't you just take a minute to look over your post before automatically hitting submit? Afterward, why did anyone care about whatever it is you went back to correct?

You have dismissed our arguments in favor edit times, but have used them yourself when needed--for many of the very reasons we brought up. How is that either fair or tenable?

 

How did I know that this would come up?

That was simple. I put in an apostrophe after extreme instead of a quotation mark. It did nothing to alter the context of my post but because the option was there I fixed it. If I could not make an edit then I would have had no concern. My points still stand in that the thoughts and ideas of the post were marshalled, checked and affirmed. Plus, the edit was within one minute of the post, inside the current JCC edit time. Just because I use a facility that is available while arguing that it does not need to be extended is not hypocrisy.

 

You were arguing against the very concept of an edit time in this thread (even though mods would still have unlimited edit time no matter what the setting for regular users). Using it to correct errors-- especially a punctuation error no one "cares" about-- is hypocritical.

 

Yes, because the basis of his objection, pretty much by his own admission, is the fact that he opposes the concept of editing. If he bothered to make an actual argument against an extension, or respond to the ones we put forward, maybe we could talk about that. But if he wants to make it about whether editing in and of itself is legitimate or worth having, then we're forced to play on his court.

 

I have argued over the extension, making points against it. In doing so I have said that I would not be against removing editing entirely also. I will also point out that in the thread you took the above edited post from there is a blatant example of one of the reasons I stated before in that one user edited a post of their after another had replied to it in order to change the contextual substance of said reply.

But at the end of the day I have said my piece. I cannot see any definitive benefit to the JCC to extend the time beyond what it currently is and works with from anything that has been presented so far in this thread. Instead of continuing on the merry-go-round I will bow out as my thoughts are not going to change without a compelling argument that has yet to be presented.

 

And, exactly as we said, that fact was identified almost immediately. The user in question did not get away with her attempt to play the system, and the potential disruption never materialized into anything substantive. How does that demonstrate your concern was a valid one? You don't want to extend the edit time because you don't want people to fail at an obvious trick that JC users have never shown a propensity to be misled by?

Nice of you to spare their feelings, I guess?

If I may go further, your excuse for bowing out seems equally terrible. You refuse to participate in a discussion because there have been no arguments that would change your mind, even though said arguments would have to arise in the discussion that you refuse to have?