I understand that there are uses for it that would be nice from a moderators stand point that are not really objectionable to me as a forum poster, ie editing out the one rule breaking prep or name in a log or some such that was an obvious oversight by the original poster. It is not hard to contrive uses for such a tool that are innocuous and hard to argue against. But, to me editing in general is a lot more subjective, it in general allows moderators a lot more control over what actually shows up on the forum, and it is easy to see how it can be used to in a manner I would object to. To me if a post is actually beneficial AND breaks the rules, then it should be deleted, and followed with a short post saying something like: "ok to repost without x rule breaking mention in it". This has been done countless times before and allows the original poster, not a moderator the chance to rephrase or not repost as they see fit. The thing is the post represents the posters ideas, views, expereince etc, they should have the right over the content of the post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2008 07:41AM by casual_player.