[wingspan33]

Rick,

In the context of a forum, posts are more like typed out conversation. If you expect a response to something you write/say then you are effectively conversing with other thread participants. Since a forum also amounts to a record of those conversations, then those conversations "belong" to the forum - as it exists as an interactive community. What one participant says effects those reading and responding, as well as those who may only be reading/observing/listening.

As such, one participant's "product" attaches itself to the dynamic of the community (back and forth) conversation. As such a community activity, can a developing thread be dissected into each participant's individual comments? Given the (greater or absolute?) freedom for that to take place (on the prerogative of one or more individual participants) and the "record" of the community conversation can/may/will fall apart. I've seen threads on MANY other forums where a participant highly modified or erased the text from their post. The result almost always results in indecipherable replies to an evaporated, no longer existent comment. The community conversation is dismantled by one participant.

Given the above, I don't think that how this forum is operated in any true way involves an authoritarian type situation. I feel that the way Bob moderates things (very minimally) is much better than MANY other hang gliding forum web sites. I also see the limited ability for members to alter/edit their posts as a way to make the "Community" more truthful and/or authentic. In saying that, I don't mean to imply that editing a post makes that author a liar. It's just that unedited posts remain truer to the original dynamic/flow of the conversation.

In addition, a forum style web site is not meant as a stage for separate, individual monologs or essays. But considering that context, certainly the author has every right to edit/modify what they create. However, professional writers know that you don't go around repeatedly editing your works once they are published. Were that to be the case, then the idea/concept presented by the author begins to lose its stability. Get it right before you publish - or don't publish.

I would favor the ability to attach comments and/or corrections related to one of your own posts via some form of hyperlink. If readers wanted to read these they could click on the link.

I'm also not sure I get the connection between being able to edit/delete your posts hours/days/months or years(?) later as ever having caused me to leave (or not begin participation in) a forum. And since the moderator here (Bob) will "fix" a number of minor errors (after the edit window closes) I don't see a big problem with how things are done here.

I don't know why we can't edit our own posts...

It's an authoritarian measure at odds with the principles of democracy. What I write is my product. It is my right to change or remove what I write. Period. Such a policy relays a poor level of respect from the operator. The inability to correct errors tends to limit one's enthusiasm and/or participation if one has high standards regarding communication.

Second, it's consistent with the spoken word

Speaking is consistent with the spoken word. Writing is consistent with the written word.

person "A" changes what they wrote, then person B's response may appear out of context

This is a "problem?" This is a problem more important than the resulting lack of participation? No. I would describe it as an imaginary problem used for the purpose of rationalizing an inadequate forum structure that impedes complex responses.

[Bill Cummings]

Concerning the discussion of one hour to edit a post or whether editing should be open ended might the following suggestion achieve some middle ground.
(I am as yet undecided which way would be best.)

Allow posts to be edited indefinitely or forever but in a response to an original post a captured quote would remain unchanged in perpetuity.

The note at the bottom of a post that it has be edited would be sufficient.
Comments?

[SamKellner]

I'm also not sure I get the connection between being able to edit later as ever having caused me to leave (or not begin participation in) a forum.

Maybe if........... I would be less likely to join in a serious forum discussion knowing other participants could edit their comments later.

Maybe this attitude is old fashioned, like recording RD votes before committee acts.

Needless moderator duties........

[Bill Cummings]

The note at the bottom of a post that it has be edited would be sufficient.
Comments?

Here now more than a hour later I just noticed my typo. To be correct It should have read:
The note at the bottom of a post that it has BEEN edited would be sufficient.
Comments?

Bob will make this correction if I ask but I won't ask this time.

[Rick Masters]

It is possible to automate a log of all posts and changes while still allowing unrestricted editing. My concern is not flow of consciousness stuff, which I couldn't care less about, but rather not being allowed to add new information or make corrections to statements where critics will return months or years later and point them out. (This is only important to people who post under their real names and are concerned about their reputation.)

Bob will make this correction if I ask but I won't ask this time.

If the forum grows as Bob hopes, he eventually won't have the time. He has concerns about people trying to muck up the forum, but he has also dealt effectively with Tad. To me that is a totally different issue than one's desiring to make stylistic changes or corrections. These can only enhance the character and historic contribution of the forum.

[Merlin]

Would you mind participating in our trial Board of Directors? It's not a commitment. In fact, it's more of an ... experiment. What do you think?

Thanks Bob. I think I'm best suited for the peanut gallery.

[Rick Masters]

A forum style web site is not meant as a stage for separate, individual monologs or essays.
Conversations "belong" to the forum.
Unedited posts remain truer to the original dynamic/flow of the conversation.
Research a topic and correct any errors before posting them.
It becomes the possesion of the recipient.
If we do make a mistake, we publicly admit it and correct it. We don't cover it up after the fact.
-----
Thanks for the clarification.

[Bob Kuczewski]

A forum style web site is not meant as a stage for separate, individual monologs or essays.
Conversations "belong" to the forum.
Unedited posts remain truer to the original dynamic/flow of the conversation.
Research a topic and correct any errors before posting them.
It becomes the possesion of the recipient.
If we do make a mistake, we publicly admit it and correct it. We don't cover it up after the fact.

Moderator's Note (January 4th, 2020):
    The quote here of Rick Masters was a copy of what Rick had
    posted (directly above), but Rick himself was quoting from
    an earlier post by Scott Wise. Unfortunately, Rick's quote of
    Scott wasn't noted as a quote, and Bob Kuczewski incorrectly
    attributed the post to Rick (here in this post). Rick later
    pointed out the misattribution, and this note is intended to
    clarify the matter for new readers of this topic.

Rick, this is very clearly and thoughtfully stated. I would nominate this to be part of a future "US Hawks Forum Guidelines" topic. Thank you.

Right now, the forum is still our main workhorse here on the site, and so we're limping along with many of its limitations. As we grow, I am hopeful that we can provide venues for varied types of communication that will better suit all of your needs. Until then, I appreciate you limping along with what we have.

Thanks again for all you've contributed to this association and to the sport of hang gliding.

[Rick Masters]

Rick, this is very clearly and thoughtfully stated.

For heaven's sake, Bob. Those are not my words. I consider such constraints at odds with accomplishing anything meaningful. But it makes a great flow-of-consciousness hippie experiment.

"Look, this is actually what the hippies said! It is a historical document."

Who cares?

[Bob Kuczewski]

For heaven's sake, Bob. Those are not my words.

Hi Rick,

I certainly recognized some of them as mine, and I took your post on face value. I thought you had given it some thought and concluded that these short guidelines (from whatever source) would make sense for a forum:

A forum style web site is not meant as a stage for separate, individual monologs or essays.
Conversations "belong" to the forum.
Unedited posts remain truer to the original dynamic/flow of the conversation.
Research a topic and correct any errors before posting them.
It becomes the possesion of the recipient.
If we do make a mistake, we publicly admit it and correct it. We don't cover it up after the fact.

I like them, and I was optimistically hoping you did as well.

The US Hawks is based on giving people choices. We want to give people a choice between USHPA and an alternative. We also want to give our members choices in how they can post. I looked up the post editing time-out with the hopes that I could change it on a forum by forum basis or a user by user basis. I was hoping that we could have an "unlimited editing" section for people who wanted that. Unfortunately, it appears to be an "across the board" setting, so I can't easily do that (or I'd have done it already). So we'll have to figure out some other way to provide that functionality while maintaining the integrity of the rest of the forum. We might have to add a Wiki - which would be a welcome addition anyway.

In the mean time, I have two potential work-arounds. The first is to use the "Report" button. That will open a window where you can request any changes. We've been doing that for a number of pilots for a long time now. The second is that I can look into the possibility of giving moderator editing privileges to selected pilots on selected subforums. So we might create a "Wiki Forum" where people wanting to revise posts would have moderator privileges that would let them do so. I haven't looked into these details yet.

I hope that shows an effort to compromise. Please let me know if you can limp along with those suggestions until we can get a more proper Wiki in place.