ISO Updated CP "Rules"

[tkoepp]

The current says NOTHING about deleting posts, the only reference to it I could find was buried in another topic. Please update the rules so that members will know what rules to follow.

OR make it similar to other sites that cannot delete / edit posts after a certain time frame (E.g. 2 hours).

 

[Ginseng]

Tim,

I don't think it's so much a rule as it is one of our community mores sort of like "read more, post less."

I am not in favor of locking out post editing after a period of time. First, it's inconvenient for live threads that require some degree of editing to maintain efficient functioning (e.g., large sale threads, pass threads, PIF threads, informational summary threads). Updating line-ups really requires open editing. Second, if we expect people to learn and exercise good judgment and posting habits, then locking posts will certainly prevent some problematic editing, but at what cost. I think we want people to make their mistakes in full view of the community. I think there needs freedom even with the possibility of misuse. We expect posters to be grown-ups and we self-moderate and I think these two are sufficient.

I don't post a lot on forums that lock posts. I expect that over time, my personal integrity and directness will become evident. I carefully consider my thoughts and (generally) think out my post, rereading several times, before hitting the post button. I don't need and I resent having "the system" freeze my posts. I'm quite adult enough to manage my own online legacy thank you.

Oh, an on a practical matter, there always seems to be a member around to quote the post and so locking in any practical time frame is really redundant.

Wilkey

 

[JHolmes763]

With the way that it's enforced it should be a rule, though. imo.

 

[Ginseng]

With the way that it's enforced it should be a rule, though. imo.

I disagree. I just can't articulate why this early in the morning.

I feel we have a sufficient number of rules to guide the operation of this forum. That's not to say that new circumstances won't arise that will require the generation of new rules, but I firmly believe this is not one of them.

Wilkey

 

[tkoepp]

Wilkey,
I too am not in favor of locking threads after a certain time period, and I agree with Rod in the sense that people should be responsible for their own threads. However, Rod has said on several separate threads that we "do not delete posts"; I'd consider this as a rule not a "unsaid, but known rule".

What is clear is that this topic is unclear. Hence this thread to shed some light.

 

[jfields]

With the way that it's enforced it should be a rule, though. imo.

I disagree. I just can't articulate why this early in the morning.

I feel we have a sufficient number of rules to guide the operation of this forum. That's not to say that new circumstances won't arise that will require the generation of new rules, but I firmly believe this is not one of them.

Wilkey

I believe that I'm going to have to agree with Jholmes on this one. While many older members realize that it is the unwritten rule that we do not delete post, I think it needs to be spelled out a bit more. I see this more and more new guys making this mistake these days. Now, we see a long standing member completely deleteing all of his post in a sale thread. I don't agree with it. I can see removing the photo's, or editing. But, to completely remove it is another story. While Tim's suggestion might be a bit drastic, I think this does need to be at the very least added to the written rules. That way New members have a clear definition available to them, as well as older members.

 

[tone-ny]

Why don't you just e-mail Rod? I'm sure he will add this in the rules.

Like in everything in life we don't all read rules, let alone obey them

 

[grateful1]

Well....this is getting close to beating a dead horse.

To keep the negatives at bay....why do you think posts should be kept?

For one...it leaves some good asshatery history.

If you have to delete a post...what did you do wrong.

If it is not 'wrong'... just edit it.


Rod could always set it up so that CPr's CAN'T EDIT posts(especially in the B/S/T areas)

Be careful what you wish for!



<edit> :sign:

Oh yea...what Wilkey said (again!).

<edit edit>

Oh, you're not looking to discuss this...you just want to have it added as a rule. Got it.

 

[CigarStone]

I'll be honest, I don't have a strong opinion on this particular issue but what does concern me is that we may, someday, have so many rules we need a committee to monitor the adherence to them. In reality, we have that committee in the form of members and when someone breaks the unwritten rule it becomes very well known and the horse is flogged, beaten, mutilated, and disemboweled for everyone to see. Which, in essence, reaches more of the viewing audience than a written rule anyway.

 

[Ginseng]

Wilkey,
I too am not in favor of locking threads after a certain time period, and I agree with Rod in the sense that people should be responsible for their own threads. However, Rod has said on several separate threads that we "do not delete posts"; I'd consider this as a rule not a "unsaid, but known rule".

What is clear is that this topic is unclear. Hence this thread to shed some light.

I'm not sure what is unclear. That one should not delete posts or the specific ramifications of doing so? I think that the former becomes clear to the member who does so, as well as the spectators at the time, and all subsequent readers of the thread in question. In fact, I would hazard that the lesson is more forcefulyl learned in the context of a transgression-correction.

I believe that I'm going to have to agree with Jholmes on this one. While many older members realize that it is the unwritten rule that we do not delete post, I think it needs to be spelled out a bit more. I see this more and more new guys making this mistake these days...While Tim's suggestion might be a bit drastic, I think this does need to be at the very least added to the written rules. That way New members have a clear definition available to them, as well as older members.

On the first point, are you really sure that the number of violations have gone up? Proportionally or in an absolute sense? Perhaps part of the perceived increase might be due to your own heightened awareness of the issue? I'm only saying that to act, we need to do so on some principled basis and not just on the perceptions of one or a few members whether it be me, you, or Rod. If we do it, it would be unjustifiable. If Rod did it, it would be arbitrary. Either case is sub-optimal.

I would support adding this guidance to Eshaw's Newbie Guide or Rod's CP New Member Guide in the form of a community custom.

I'll be honest, I don't have a strong opinion on this particular issue but what does concern me is that we may, someday, have so many rules we need a committee to monitor the adherence to them. In reality, we have that committee in the form of members and when someone breaks the unwritten rule it becomes very well known and the horse is flogged, beaten, mutilated, and disemboweled for everyone to see. Which, in essence, reaches more of the viewing audience than a written rule anyway.

Harsh, but in the worst of cases, this is the outcome.

Practically speaking, whether this is left as an unstated custom or codified as a "rule," I honestly cannot imagine how this would change things in terms of either newcomer awareness or in prosecution/enforcement. If, as Anthony reasonably conjectured, new members are unlikely to read or read carefully the existing documents, then writing this down will not change the awareness aspect. If after it has been codified, a member transgresses, then what? Will there be official penalties? Will it then become a bannable offense? I'm guessing no. What will likely happen is that the offending member will get corrected, he'll act, the community will react, and life will go on.

So, if there is no net effect and no net benefit to making it a codified rule, then why do it?

Wilkey

 

[Infinity]

We don't have so many rules; we in fact, have little to no rules because we are self moderated.

Ever since I have been a member here, we have not / do not, delete entire posts and I agree 100% with that. Without going into detail, again... LOL, CP is like a book,
we have a search function that allows us to look into archives. Do you guys thinks it's right to tear pages out of the book?

Locking threads will just not work This is "Cigar Pass", threads have to be edited when necessary for clarity.


Edit to add... I think we should add one rule though. We do not have to use a dictionary when reading a post..."cough cough" :laugh:

Brian

 

[Dadster1960]

 

[Jonesy]

A thread about rules, and you just broke one there Dadster. :whistling:

 

[Dadster1960]

A thread about rules, and you just broke one there Dadster. :whistling:

which one?

 

[Jonesy]

Rod just made a thread recently about people eating up bandwidth by posting a picture with nothing to say in their post. In other words, if the only thing you plan on doing is posting a picture, then don't post at all.


edited to add LINKY

 

[Rod]

Only one person can delete threads and posts, that's me. Members do not have the ability to remove threads. This allows us to keep track of all actions that occur at CP. It has worked quite well, and it's not changing.

Members have every right to edit their posts. If this is in reference to what recently happened in the BST forum, then PM me and I'll explain to you personally. I will not put certain information out there for all to see, for obvious reasons. I am not going to make an official rule demanding that people can't edit their posts. I can actually change a setting on the forum which disallows anyone from editing their posts, though this isn't necessary. There are times when certain information needs to be removed. Then again, perhaps certain sales shouldn't be posted in the first place...?

Use your best judgment out there, and especially common sense. We don't need more rules, this is a community, we guide it as a group.

Rod
PS - Again, posting pictures in threads does absolutely nothing positive, it only causes interference and takes away from the subject at hand. If you don't have something positive to contribute, don't.