What if you couldn't post a reply until what is replied to has reached its semi-final version?

[Boojatta]

A post has reached its "semi-final version" when no editing has been done within the past three minutes and when it has been at least three minutes since the post was posted.

The idea is that the person who posts a message on any public DU forum would be able to edit the message for up to an hour as usual. However, if the person who posts a message begins to edit it within three minutes of posting it or within three minutes of previously editing it, then it would not yet have reached its semi-final version.

I'm talking about a reply to a thread Original Post or a reply to any other public message. You could reply to a PM as quickly as you wanted.

The question is: do we really consider three minutes too long to wait to respond to something?

Also, why must one recommend a thread within twenty-four hours? Are we the anti-Senate here: the chamber of un-sober first thought with no second thoughts allowed?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Howe aboot eidhfgklg befour you tipe? er poste

[Boojatta]

2. Are you talking about just copy editing for grammar, spelling, etc.

or are you talking about general editing for clarity, organization, removal of non-essential points, etc?

[Warren Stupidity]

3. nnio i Meane just doontmklpow hit the e,jfnter keweye

untile yu huve rlkjeflacterated on ouyre psot a bit.

Spend the three minutes to consider what you are posting. Then post. Why add another rule?

A better new feature, in my opinion, would be an edit history as in wiki.

[Boojatta]

4. "Spend the three minutes to consider what you are posting. Then post."

No, you can post a new thread immediately. The three minutes are to consider what you are replying to.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. You, the poster, can do this right now.

Before you hit the enter key, wait three minutes. Then either delete the thing, edit it, or post. Why would we need a new rule to prevent replies until you are 'ready' when you can already be as ready as you want to be when you hit the enter key?

[Boojatta]

6. Well, I'm talking about software functionality, not the DU Rules.

Again, the main issue isn't that the message being replied to is going to change significantly. The main issue is for the DU community to decide whether or not three minutes is too much of your valuable time to devote to reading the thing that you consider to be worth replying to -- and this is assuming that you happened to begin reading the thing immediately when it was posted. If you happen to first see a post when it has already reached its semi-final version, then you could reply to it immediately.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. "software functionality" = mandatory rule.

You have proposed a software implemented ban on replying to a post for some arbitrary period that you have decided means that a post is 'semi final'. Ok, that would be what I mean by a rule, in this case one that is automatically enforced. I don't see the great need here. In the case of typos misspellings etc - so waht? In the cause of ambiguities, the downthread posts generally clear that up and once again - so what if you edit the OP to clear things up? The other case is one that truly irks me: somebody posts something egregiously inflammatory, gets a few responses, and then edits the troll-post to make it non-inflammatory, leaving the responders looking like it is they who are out of line. The remedy for that particular crap-attack is an edit history.

[Boojatta]

11. Sorry, I might have not expressed myself clearly enough.

You have proposed a software implemented ban on replying to a post for some arbitrary period that you have decided means that a post is 'semi final'.

I didn't intend to suggest that during the period when a post is semi-final, people cannot reply to it. I intended to say that, when a post becomes semi-final and for as long as the thread it belongs to remains active, people should be able to reply to it. I also intended to suggest that, before a post becomes semi-final, the system should prevent replies.

You refer to the period as "arbitrary." Would you say that the duration from the moment a traffic light turns green to the moment it turns yellow is arbitrary? If you would say that it is arbitrary, then what is the significance of the fact that you consider it to be arbitrary?

I believe that there are some important differences between software modification and DU rules. One problem with additional rules is that enforcement requires moderators to do additional work. Another problem is that many DU members might be unfamiliar with the rules if the text describing them becomes very long. Another problem is that there is room for interpretation so that many ordinary DU members might have hard feelings about either a decision by moderators to delete a post or lock a thread etc. or a decision by moderators to leave a post undeleted, or a thread unlocked, etc.

[lame54]

7. post as quickly as you can w/o thought - that's the DU way

:sarcasm:

[Boojatta]

19. Maybe DU should have a slogan to help change the DU Way...

Investigate the Original Post or other message that you are responding to. Investigate before you respond. After you respond, it may be too late to investigate. And by "investigate", we mean "read"!

[ThomWV]

9. In 3 minutes a post can find itself off the front page

[Boojatta]

10. I would not be so bold as to deny your claim.

What reason is there to think that it is impossible for a thread to fall, within three minutes, from the first page to another page? None that I can think of. However, I don't know what is the significance of your claim. Surely if a thread was on the first page within the past three minutes and if you now post to it, then it will again move to the first page. So what? Does a thread become obsolete the first time it moves off the first page?

Perhaps you're talking about the "Latest" Page rather than the first page of a fast-moving forum such as "General Discussion"? Even in that case, your claim doesn't seem very significant to me.

[Igel]

12. Edit history is one way of doing it.

Another might be to have the software block any edits to a post that has a reply posted to it. You can edit a post for up to 60 minutes after making it, *if* it hasn't been blocked by having a post. One might decide to exempt posts from mods from the rule, or grant them deity-like authority to reinstate editing rights to an errant poster who needs to fix the subject line in late-breaking news (etc.).

Edit history would do as well, but maybe be messier.

[Boojatta]

14. "have the software block any edits to a post that has a reply posted to it."

If you edit your own post, then you are probably actively thinking about your own words and not simply posting fixed dogma. If you post a very rapid response, then you might not be paying enough careful attention to what you are responding to.

[TheMadMonk]

13. The post composition form has a preview button. Use it.

The only real reason for an immediate edit, is to correct some glaring error, generally formatting/speeling, or sometimes to add in an afterthought (or a thought that didn't make it to your fingers) that occurs to you when you see the post in its proper layout.

Previewing and proof reading what you wrote before final submission achieves exactly the same result as your proposed timed moratorium on replies. And the beauty of it is, that it can be applied to every single post that you make, not just the originating ones.

[Boojatta]

15. "exactly the same result as your proposed timed moratorium on replies"

I think that preventing quick knee-jerk replies might have the effect of motivating people to think more carefully about what they are replying to, so that they might be less likely to misrepresent what is there and more likely to ask about anything that is unclear.

[TheMadMonk]

16. Kneejerk replies occur when the respondent sees the post.

And after he has read it. By which time there is every chance that the three minutes is up.

If the OP is so unclear or inflammatory as to invite such replies, then the fault lies with your composition. If it is simply controversial, no amount of waiting is going to stop those idiots who are determined to be offended.

YOU stop and think BEFORE you submit. That goes for whether you are submitting and original post or a reply to any post.

THAT is the responsibility of ALL posters.

The only variant of your proposal that might make sense is a three minute cooling off period between your submitting the post and it appearing in the forums, in which you could retract it before making your idiocy public. And I'm not particularly enamoured to even that idea.

If you must vent, do it in notepad where you're not going to be risking a virtual head kicking.

If you do it in a public forum, then you must be prepared for any and all consequences, be they a tongue-lashing or tombstoning.

(Bugger! Typo. Need to follow my own advice.)

[Boojatta]

17. "If the OP is so unclear or inflammatory as to invite such replies"

What if the Original Post is metaphorically dressed in a provocative manner... Would it simply be inviting sexual harassment?

[TheMadMonk]

18. Given that it happens all the time around here, I'd have to say yeah.

I know, a bit tasteless. But your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous.

Your suggestion offers no discernible advantage that couldn't be better achieved, simply with some small apportionment of thought on the part of the poster.

Stop and think or post and stink.