I have a legitimate grievance about Private Messaging

[Muse]

An Anandtech "member" who I didn't know PMed me in early April. He was curious about me. I replied, and over some 2 1/2 months we kept a conversation going. Usually long posts, and there are some 110 such posts. I usually replied very quickly to him over those 2 1/2 months, riffing off his previous reply. He often took a week or two to reply, sometimes much sooner. One day in June he said something that ticked me off, he made an assumption about me that I disagreed with and I replied with "dude, you're bent." He didn't respond and a couple months later I wanted to read parts of our voluminous conversation for information I didn't remember -- we'd discussed movies, technology, a lot of stuff he knew about and he'd suggested many things to me. So, I visited our PM in the middle of August to discover that my private conversation partner had essentially deleted all his posts. He replaced the content of all of his posts with "..."

I responded with an angry rebuke, but figure he never read it, just a few words it was, or he didn't care and didn't read it. That doesn't matter, the damage was done.

I think this is very unfair. I can understand in the forums being able to edit your posts. However, in a PM situation I don't think you should indefinitely be able to do that. Perhaps for a few hours or a day or two, but not indefinitely. I belong to many forums, but post here the most by far. I joined a forum for a product I bought a couple weeks ago and you can edit your posts but after a day or so I noticed that the option to edit your posts disappears. I think that should definitely be in effect for PMs (here, or anywhere). If I'd had any idea this might happen I would have quoted all my PM partner's (often very long) posts, and unless the forums change, will do that in the future with PMs if I have any concern about it. I'm once burned twice shy on this. I'm also curious if anything can be done about this. Perhaps his posts are out there in a backup. I know, maybe no recourse, but I think my suggestion for not allowing PM posters to edit their posts after, say, a day has great merit!

 

[mindless1]

Agreed, this is the case on other forums as well and I think a good time period for editing would be 24 hrs max, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that given the backlog of other things that would be nice to fix on the forums.

Then again, I would not assume any web forum will remain static long term. Freakin' PEOPLE like to change things for no reason sometimes and some changes break things, so if I want to maintain a correspondance with someone I'd take it to email where I can retain a local copy.

 

[Muse]

Agreed, this is the case on other forums as well and I think a good time period for editing would be 24 hrs max, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that given the backlog of other things that would be nice to fix on the forums.

Then again, I would not assume any web forum will remain static long term. Freakin' PEOPLE like to change things for no reason sometimes and some changes break things, so if I want to maintain a correspondance with someone I'd take it to email where I can retain a local copy.

Good point about taking it to email. I'm not afraid of email, gonna keep that in mind. This guy was kind of dicey to begin with but his action took me by surprise totally. Smart guy, but had some curious twists in him.

I post here more than anywhere by far but at one time I posted at Rotten Tomatoes Forums. At the time it was a magnificent place full of brilliant film buffs. So many of the threads were gold mines of information, super inspirational. Those forums were eventually destroyed. It may be possible to find some of it online, but almost impossible, maybe actually impossible now. I think it was money that fucked it up. The film industry wanted their films promoted, their new releases. People tripping on cinema as a whole (all its great history) didn't serve that purpose. It's my theory.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I agree with this. 48hr max edit timeout for PMs.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I did not even know editing PMs was a thing. IMO you should not be able to edit a PM once it's been read I think that would be the best rule of thumb to go by.

 

[Craig234]

I don't know, I have some sympathy for people having some control over their posts indefinitely. If he was made angry enough to want to remove his previous comments, I'm inclined to put his choice over his content over your right to it.

It's not about judging your behavior, whether or not you were right to post what you did, whether he is right to be angered by it. It's simply his right to choose to remove his content. On top of that, you could have preserved it if you wanted. That's not really the issue, because you did not know you would need to, but it's just 'icing on the cake'.

Editing after a fact can be a problem. But that's why moderators can access content after it's deleted, if I understand correctly. For the cases of inappropriate deletion, not simply because someone feels they have a right to not allow a poster to delete content.

Imagine it was a verbal exchange, and after the conflict, you wanted the name of a movie he'd told you. Do you call him and say, I know you are angry, but tell me the name of the movie again, and when he says he does not want to, you say, no, you have no choice, you said it once, so you have to say it again if I want you to.

While editing can be a problem, I have also valued being able to edited long-ago posted content. I can't remember having done so, but I have been glad to be able to for a good reason. That 'moderator can see deleted content in the case of inappropriate editing' seems to address the balance.

 

[VirtualLarry]

But that's why moderators can access content after it's deleted

That 'moderator can see deleted content in the case of inappropriate editing' seems to address the balance.

Craig, do you get that we were discussing PMs (which Mods supposedly don't have access to), and NOT forum content?

Imagine that you knew this really hot girl in HS, and you had some happy memories of your interactions.

Would it seem fair to you, if, when she got married to someone else later in life, that she was able to "wipe all of your happy memories of her", because she wanted to? You couldn't remember her face, any place that you were together, any words she spoke. All of it. Gone. Is that fair?

Likewise, if you were dealing with someone on a FS transaction, and they offered you a year warranty on something. You chose to buy it. Two months later, he edits his PM posts, and removes the offer of warranty. Is that fair?

 

[Muse]

Never again. If I have an extended conversation with anyone I'm not 100% about it's going to email. Being able to edit after a day or two, much less delete is pure bullshit, should not be allowed. I can't think of a single reason otherwise. If you decide you don't like what you said, you can say so and explain. Fucking with what you said way later is reprehensible and arguably dishonest.

@VirtualLarry, I know you're not like that. You are trustworthy. Many many people are not.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I can understand in the forums being able to edit your posts. However, in a PM situation I don't think you should indefinitely be able to do that. Perhaps for a few hours or a day or two, but not indefinitely.

I agree with this totally.

 

[Craig234]

Never again. If I have an extended conversation with anyone I'm not 100% about it's going to email. Being able to edit after a day or two, much less delete is pure bullshit, should not be allowed. I can't think of a single reason otherwise. If you decide you don't like what you said, you can say so and explain. Fucking with what you said way later is reprehensible and arguably dishonest.

@VirtualLarry, I know you're not like that. You are trustworthy. Many many people are not.

That's your right, but I think it's also the right of the person to withdraw their content. You don't like it, but that doesn't make you the owner of their content. It's their right to be angry with you, just as it's your right to be angry with them.

There are many reasons people could legitimately want to remove content some time after it's posted. As I said, I can't remember doing so, but I've been glad I can. "Reprehensible" would only apply to some cases, and arguably dishonest only if they edit to misrepresent what they had said, which is not what we're discussing. I don't see anything dishonest in this incident, I see anger.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I think that one possibility, is to offer two options for posting PMs. One, "editable PM", would be in Red Color, and a "non-editable PM", would be in a normal color. Or possibly, vice-versa.

Therefore, if you were PM'ing with someone, about a FS deal, you would normally use the "non-editable PM" (which the reader could tell by the color), and thus know that the person posting it, wouldn't be able to delete it or change it after the fact.

Edit: Along with a user-profile option, "Only accepts non-editable PMs".

 

[Muse]

That's your right, but I think it's also the right of the person to withdraw their content. You don't like it, but that doesn't make you the owner of their content. It's their right to be angry with you, just as it's your right to be angry with them.

There are many reasons people could legitimately want to remove content some time after it's posted. As I said, I can't remember doing so, but I've been glad I can. "Reprehensible" would only apply to some cases, and arguably dishonest only if they edit to misrepresent what they had said, which is not what we're discussing. I don't see anything dishonest in this incident, I see anger.

You see anger, but how to you know if anger was even in the equation? I never said I was angry until after he'd deleted the content. I then expressed my anger and he didn't respond, good chance he didn't even read my rebuke which was one simple short sentence. Anger was AFAIK not involved at all in the incident per se. You are clearly projecting, period. You are being dishonest here in actuality, and you should stay out of it.

 

[Craig234]

You see anger, but how to you know if anger was even in the equation? I never said I was angry until after he'd deleted the content. I then expressed my anger and he didn't respond, good chance he didn't even read my rebuke which was one simple short sentence. Anger was AFAIK not involved at all in the incident per se. You are clearly projecting, period. You are being dishonest here in actuality, and you should stay out of it.

I see anger from you, but I was referring to his anger leading him to delete his messages. Whatever I'm doing, it's not projection. But your accusation of dishonesty is dishonest. You don't have much leg to stand on telling people who disagree with you to stay out of it, when you post it on a discussion forum. I'm not deleting my messages, but don't plan to read you further on this.

 

[UsandThem]

You don't have much leg to stand on telling people who disagree with you to stay out of it, when you post it on a discussion forum.

Interesting........

 

[Muse]

I see anger from you, but I was referring to his anger leading him to delete his messages. Whatever I'm doing, it's not projection. But your accusation of dishonesty is dishonest. You don't have much leg to stand on telling people who disagree with you to stay out of it, when you post it on a discussion forum. I'm not deleting my messages, but don't plan to read you further on this.

Bye bye. *shrug*

Yes, you're projecting! You have no hint that there was any anger involved until he deleted all his posts.

 

[Muse]

Interesting........

Yes, participation is there if in a forum, but one has some responsibility to respond appropriately. Asking someone to stay out of a discussion if their responses are inappropriate would seem to be OK. It's human interaction.

 

[UsandThem]

Yes, participation is there if in a forum, but one has some responsibility to respond appropriately. Asking someone to stay out of a discussion if their responses re inappropriate would seem to be OK. It's human interaction.

What was interesting about what I quoted is that's exactly what he told users to do in his Amazon thread in OT.

 

[Muse]

What was interesting about what I quoted is that's exactly what he told users to do in his Amazon thread in OT.

We live in tough times. Sanity, I'm convinced, is "a full time job!"

 

[allisolm]

We have said it over and over but I will repeat it: moderators do not have access to any conversations unless we are named participants. We can't edit content of any conversations in which we are not named participants because we don't have access to them.

It has been that way for the entire 13 years I have been on the moderation team here.

BTW - I agree with those of you who say there should be a time limit on editing of conversation messages. 48 hrs would be enough in my book. However, those things are not under our control.

 

[Muse]

We have said it over and over but I will repeat it: moderators do not have access to any conversations unless we are named participants. We can't edit content of any conversations in which we are not named participants because we don't have access to them.

It has been that way for the entire 13 years I have been on the moderation team here.

BTW - I agree with those of you who say there should be a time limit on editing of conversation messages. 48 hrs would be enough in my book. However, those things are not under our control.

Well, I suppose control would be one or maybe both of these:

1. Policy decision
2. Software upgrade

Now, I realize that some bugs in the software haven't been fixed because, I presume, the software hasn't been upgraded for a while. For instance the bolding spilling out where it doesn't belong.

So, if changing when something can be deleted, say not after 24 or 48 hours have passed needs a software change, I can understand that. Policy decision I assume can be made, and probably should be made, before software changes are contemplated, that is when the requirements are being determined.

Can you speak to these? Thank you!

 

[allisolm]

We can't speak to them. We have no software control. We make no software decisions. The Future folks do all that but are seldom responsive to our requests for changes. It is what it is.

 

[Muse]

We can't speak to them. We have no software control. We make no software decisions. The Future folks do all that but are seldom responsive to our requests for changes. It is what it is.

Thanks for trying and I like to remember and say, "no harm in asking." It brings some courage.