Admin Editing Posts

[naomi24]

Twice today my posts have been edited. Is this a new policy? If so, I think it should be re-examined. I for one am not happy for other people to change what I've written. That simply isn't right.

[dannyk13]

Naomi, sorry I didn't realise that your post had been removed.

[TheDevil]

09:52 yet another explanation ;-)

Gosh Dannyk13, why can't we just read what has been written! :D

[THELOONYCORBYN]

"It seems pretty obvious to me that the Mods/Eds etc are trying to do a party political broadcast on behalf of the Tories. "

and that just about sums the poster and their lack of rational thought processing up...

[naomi24]

Danny, half my post was removed ... the bit that asked the other poster why she disagreed with me - and actually I would still like to know why she disagreed with me. If I didn't want to know I wouldn't have asked. That's what this thread is all about.

[dannyk13]

Thanks for the clarification Naomi.:-)

[naomi24]

You're welcome, danny.

[TheDevil]

And one final explication. Nice, only took 8 pages to figure out what you're actually goin on about.

[naomi24]

Ah, well ... you got there in the end. Well done, TD. ;o)

[ludwig]

// THECORBYLOON, I would prefer an offending post to be deleted. No one should take it upon themselves to change what someone else has said. Utterly wrong. //

I agree with this. It may seem like a good idea to retain the parts of a post that don't break the rules while removing the offending bits, but it isn't.

[dannyk13]

Ludwig// while removing the offending bits//
There were no offending bits removed from Naomi's post.

[TheDevil]

Dannyk13 - "There were no offending bits removed from Naomi's post."

How do you know?

[naomi24]

Ludwig, my post didn't break the rules - not the bit that was left nor the bit that was removed. None of it.

[dannyk13]

TD, read Naomi's post at 10.03.

[woofgang]

ermm because naomi has just told us?

[TheDevil]

So are you lying Naomi or is the editor lying?

Editor - //One of the few circumstances in which we do so are when that answer is beneficial to the thread but also happens to refer to a different answer that has been deleted.//

Naomi - If that were so with the high number of posts removed here on a daily basis, other posts would be edited constantly - but they’re not. This needs a re-think. It’s not smart.

Spare Ed said " As far as I'm aware, that is what you are referring to."

You never corrected the ed to make it clear what you are referring to (queue, alluding Naomi) so this implies that what you wrote did break Site Rules.

Now you're saying all you did was ask someone why they disagreed with you and that it didn't break Site Rules?

I assume you've reported the offending answer to be re-assessed then.

So Dannyk13, you admit to being a moderator, do you think the Editor would just edit well established members posts willy nilly for no apparent reason at all? Then do you think they would post on this thread like they had no idea what naomi was referring to whislt implying that Noami's post broke Site Rules?

[TheDevil]

If this thread was posted by Jordyboy, rest assured none of this nonsense would have made it to page 2 let alone 8.

[dannyk13]

TD,//So Dannyk13, you admit to being a moderator,//
Do keep up, I have never denied it, and several earlier posts have referred to it.I am not going to get involved any further in one of your habitual protracted arguments.

[naomi24]

TD, //I assume you've reported the offending answer to be re-assessed then. //

What offending answer?

[TheDevil]

Naomi24 - "What offending answer?"

It's not cute to play dumb. Obviously the answer that you're saying has been edited to cause this entire issue.