creative control

While it’s true that you are the originator of your posts, I have bad news for you. Anything posted here belongs to ILP, and the owner/adminisrator makes all decisions concerning content.

Tentative has pretty much got it.

Although, it’s not just the property of ILP, imo, because ILP (Excepting Staff Discussion, Quarantine, and Rant House) is a public site. In other words, the information belongs to everyone because everyone has access to it as soon as you post it.

The only area where I would disagree is if a post was personally identifiable, either within the post, or via your Handle. Of course, you can change your Handle at any time, and Staff would certainly be willing to Edit Out personally identifiable information from a post. I think I can actually speak for Staff on that one.

The policy is a near Universal on Message Boards. Other than the rare exceptions that will let you Delete an entire Account (Including Posts), at best, you’d have to go through and Edit each individual post one-by-one. Of course, we have an Edit block (either 24 or 72 hours, don’t remember) preventing that. Again, in extenuating circumstances, we would Edit it for a person, upon request.

No matter who posts belong to (and I agree with tentative here), allowing unlimited editing causes problems. Responders shouldn’t have to quote if they don’t want to. The context isn’t always preserved. And anyone is free to emend any of their posta with another post.

I phrased myself incorrectly, what I basically meant is we would change your Handle if it is personally identifiable and you didn’t want it to be. We might change it for other reasons, upon request, that’s probably case-by-case.

The only negative effect would be thread continuity, because you’d have quotes attributed to people who are, strictly speaking, no longer posting (and, by appearances, never posted) in the thread. I can say with some confidence that we probably wouldn’t change someone’s handle more than once…


Editing has to have some limits. Nothing pisses me off more than trying to respond to a post that is being edited two or three times and changing the original context that I’m trying to respond to. We have a couple of members who abuse editing frequently. I often have to edit because my @$%#%!! keyboard doesn’t know how to speel and I’m too lazy to read what I’ve written before I hit submit.

I think perhaps the best idea is for members (especially me) to write clearly, methodically, and deliberately so that editing, deletions, or any other changes aren’t necessary. It’s obvious that sloppiness, both in writing and thinking, is everywhere on this site. Making that bad habit even easier prolly isn’t a great idea. We may not like the limitations of posting control, but it beats the hell out of letting the batshitcrazies making it even more difficult to find coherency inside a thread.

ILP acts like it owns the content because it does.

I don’t bother with it because it’s not a possibility.
If you want to hear the long line of reasons, then write Carleas about it.
But ILP will simply not be releasing that standard in any manner you are looking for.
I’m not here debating or waxing philosophy. I’m telling you that your “suggestion” won’t happen so it’s rather pointless to go on and on about it as if reasoning will suddenly change anything.

Sorry if you find it rude to tell you that the forum policy will not change on the matter, so the idea that you will get “help” is not possible.

You want a change that I once inquired on when I first arrived.
I’m telling you, take it or leave it, that waxing ideals on the matter isn’t going to change that policy.
If you just feel like banging your head against a virtual wall…knock yourself out I guess.


ILP isn’t unusual in website ownership of material posted there. We could go through all the “intellectual property rights” and copyright stuff again. There was a thread on it in soc about a year or so ago. It’s a grey area but not legally. The website owns all rights to the material. That said, if you posted a poem or wrote a long essay and wanted to use it somewhere else, I doubt that there would be any objection by carleas or the owner of any other site for that matter. What is ownership is a fuzzy area right now. Ask the music industry how successful they were in demanding intellectual property rights. The internet has turned ownership on its head. All the websites are doing is preserving whatever legal rights they may have until it becomes a big enough issue for congressional action - along with the judicial review process. Eventually, you may own your own work, prolly another 15 or 20 years from now. But till then, anything you write on the internet belongs to someone else, and they also control all aspects of how that material is handled.

In what way would it make it better?

ILP can’t safely release that ownership because it then states that it doesn’t own itself and thereby is not its own property.
ILP doesn’t own the IP.
It owns the posts.
There is a huge difference.
ILP cannot sue me for publishing a book with ideas I also wrote here.
But the posts belong to ILP.
If they didn’t, then any random hacker could cite that they did not violate ILP’s property rights.

… come again?

edit: I get it now. I’m slow.

The problem with freedom is the abuse. Some people could handle it, but most couldn’t or wouldn’t. I don’t have any problems with your suggestions other than the ugly reality that they wouldn’t work in too many cases. If you’ve ever visited one of the flame sites, you have the perfect example of my reservations. The world would be a perfect place if it weren’t for humans. :wink: There is a whole shitload of things that would function better if we weeded out the shitheads, but we drag them with us anyway. Eventually we may evolve intelligence, but I doubt if any of us will be around to see it, So grit your teeth and suffer along with the rest of us. If you want to do something creative, hide it in a closet. Otherwise, it will be all over facebook or made in China…

The ones who invented perfection?

Sounds false.

I think you guys should just say ‘legal issues’ instead of… other excuses.

Oh, and btw Monook: The reason that editing is limited hasn’t anything to do with who owns what.
It has to do with Carleas’ final decision on the matter of continuity, as you suspected at the beginning.
And while you cite quote as the function that removes this from being a problem, it doesn’t.

And I can personally share that in my time as moderator, my opinion on the matter changed from more along your line of thinking to Carleas’ line of thinking.
The reason is that, as a moderator, I’ve seen the train wreck that occurred when someone went back and placed a “”, or “…” on all of their posts after being involved in several conversations.
Even after I was moderator, infinite editing was allowed.
After further abuses in quite a few cases, it was limited to 48 hours so that people couldn’t fume out for whatever random reason from ILP and on their way out just “”, or “…” all of their posts, or a huge chunk of them.

So while it seems like a good idea; I can say that I’ve seen first hand cases where the staff at ILP has continually been shown that it does not work.

I believe that was the case in the past, but it was abused; people deleting all their old posts by editing out all the texts. So it was changed. And people simply don’t quote enough, and it’s not clear enough when they do, to reconstruct a discussion.

From an ideal point of view, I agree that everyone should be able to do so freely and we would all be responsible individuals and not fuck things up for everyone else. In such a world, of course, we’d barely need any rules and laws at all. But the world is not ideal, so the choice was made as it was. A few rotten apples, and all that.

Of course, if you want an argument by analogy, you could equally argue that once you say something, you can’t unsay it - your statements are yours, warts and all, and if you want to correct them, do so in a subsequent post. So we should remove ALL editing…

Are there concretely any posts you’d like to change, or do you raise it from a concern of principle?

I’ve acted poorly sometimes here at ILP. I think it’s a sad day when I can just delete all the places where I acted poorly and pretend they never happened. I have to live with myself, and learn to forgive myself and move on. Internet karma. You can’t erase the past, you can only try to make things better in the future. That’s how it should be, because that’s the way it is. It’s not good to pamper a bunch of supposed adults (granted, there’s a few kids here) by putting carpet on the walls of their playroom. If I say something stupid, I can apologize. If I say something wrong, I can correct myself. That’s the nature of public discourse.

Haha, I wasn’t thinking of our own conversation. I didn’t think I had to apologize for anything there. But if I said something offensive or annoying to you, I apologize right now.

I tried to convey what I consider the principle of the thing. It’s public discourse. That’s the principle. I related some stuff about myself for example only.

If you wrote something really great, and you want to sell it, just do it. Why not? So what if it’s here too? Or if that really does pose a problem, maybe you could PM Carleas and see if you can work something out?

This isn’t a publishing site. And if it were, you’d be even more restricted in your abilities to edit.

If you have something to say, something that you want to be personally identified with and something which you wish to retain control over, you don’t go printing it in online discussion boards - you need to find a way to publish it, so that you can retain creative control.

If someone on a website that allows editing of old posts then copies it wholesale and pastes it over the top of an old post, claiming that they wrote it first, it’s clear - that site allows editing, the claim has practically no legal force. If you want to be a reputable publishing site, you disallow such editing and put a version tracking/control system in place, it gets much more strict. There are journal sites out there, but this isn’t one of them.

In any case, what’s “yours” can be quoted, so that it’s no longer “yours”. You’ve placed it into the (semi-)public discussion arena, for discussion. And if ILP granted full IP rights for each user to “their” text, it is suddenly open to a raft of legal liabilities and responsible for maintaining the data - a user could in theory sue for any loss of data by corruption or crash. And in any case, the site is treated as the owner in some sense - if someone posts, say, child porn, or licence key cracks, the site is held legally responsible for removing it as soon as possible.

The product here is not your words, the product is a functional discussion board. I can see your argument from intuition, but I don’t see that it’s strong enough to overturn the pragmatics of running the board for what it is. I hope you don’t restrict your posting in apprehension of damaging your later publications - the people need their river, after all :slight_smile: