I feel that quoted posts should reflect the edits that are subsequently applied to the post. This is the way it works on the reputation page, but not in the regular forums. There are many cases where obsolete versions of posts live on long after authors have amended the original statements.

Quoting scotthm:

Quote:
Quoting mediadogg:

Quote:
I feel that quoted posts should reflect the edits that are subsequently applied to the post.

But wouldn't that change the context of the response?  I don't think that's a good idea.

---------------

Agreed! DOWN WITH MEDIADOGG AND HIS QUEST FOR CENSORSHIP!!!!!

Quoting Parsec:

Quote:
Quoting mediadogg:

Quote:
I feel that quoted posts should reflect the edits that are subsequently applied to the post. This is the way it works on the reputation page.......(snipped)

I don't understand this, there are no posts on the reputation page nor can you edit anything. Did I miss something?

Btw, I think you would be better off having particular phrases and words added to the content filter of this forum software's settings. I am sure it would have the ability. That would be a lot easier then having people edit their posts, and the quoted replies, if something needs to be cleaned up.

Agreed.  I think MediaDogg was just suggesting that any words in a quote that might be offensive be fixed in any subsequent quotes.

There are posts on the reputation page. Look again (Edit - you have to click on the link). And if those posts are edited, the edits are reflected. Try it - I'll give out some greenies so you can see for yourself.

Notwithstanding the kneejerk reaction some made about my presumed desire for censorship, this has actually been one of my hot buttons for a long time. It was just recently rekindled.

It really annoys me when people quote long sections of technical info that is subject to change. They might point out an error, or ask for clarification. That's why authors are allowed to update posts in the plugins section (by request). But the old, obsolete and sometimes incorrect information lives on in infamy, inside quotes. You notice I usually write "please do not qoute this post" for that very reason.

Edit: also think about what happens if a moderator removes a post - I disppears from everywhere. The good bits get thrown out with the bad. This way, an author could have second thoughts and have the revised intentions live on.

To restate what I am really getting at, is that quoted posts should reflect what the author has said, even as modified. You only have a small window, and only the author can do it. If an author chooses to modify a post, why should the old versions live on forever? That is really my only point. Has nothing to do with censorship.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the weird (in your view) behavior of the reputation links to posts was changed to be consistent with the Forums?   

That would teach me to keep my trap shut!

Anyways, I guess we beat this poor horse enough ...

The problem is accountability. It's not so much a problem here on Invelos where political discussions are disallowed (but even contribution discussions can get heated) but it's certainly a problem on other forums.

When I quote someone I often reduce it to the necessary. I don't do it to misquote the other guy (but I have to admit, quoting has been used for that, too - on and off the internet) but to simply carve out his/her central point (question or statement) and respond to that.

I've also seen people editing their original post after a while claiming they never wrote what they were accused of having written. That's why most forum software have an edit marker and some even a post history (like on Wikipedia).
If you allow people to modifiy tehir own post and indirectly alter all posts that replied to that, you open a very dangerous door.

Quoting mediadogg:

Quote:
All I'm saying is that, if the author makes a legal edit, what is the point of propagating the original post, which no longer reflects the author's (public) point of view?

It allows us to see the author's (real) point of view.

---------------

Quoting mediadogg:

Quote:
I feel that quoted posts should NOT!!!! reflect the edits that are subsequently applied to the post.

Really?  That's a horrible idea.