Even Editing/Deleting is not going to change someone's adverse disposition. :0)

Then they clarify it in another post. Not that difficult. Like an Editorial retraction in a newspaper.

"Forums aren't threaded"

Look above at the URL and you will see you are incorrect. The URL lists the Forum, Message, Reply, and Post - if you click on one. In fact, I will dissect it for you. Your post:

• ForumID=12357 is the Community Center Forum ID
• &Form.ShowMessage=1596184 is the First Message ID
• &Reply=1598324 is Your Reply ID
• #42 is Your post number in the thread.

Therefore, your post (1598324), is a child of the First Message (1596184). How do you think that the forum software knows that your Reply belongs with my Message?

"so I make a post and goof up, but before I can delete it to rewrite, someone else has posted and I'm screwed..."

That depends on when you notice the goof up. Since the forum software shows you your post immediately after posting, you could easily click Delete and restart before anyone has a chance to read it. If you decline to re-read, who's fault is that?

There is a very slight chance that someone will post immediately to your initial post before you can click on a link. If you could Edit the post, then you could fix the goof up, right? So Deleting is moot.

"If the ability to edit posts are enabled, but you can't delete, whats to stop someone from removing all text from a post"

Nothing, I suppose. But you also post at another forum where this is possible, IIRC, and how often does that happen realistically?

"(and don't say "We can have it so if there is no text, we will have it reject the edit" because there are ways around that."

Both are possible if you know what to look for and how much you are willing to qualify the text before processing.

Perhaps someone can illustrate why having a Delete funtion and not an Edit function is a viable solution? You can argue pretty much the same case for either situation. To me, the Edit function would be much more versatile than the Delete; which would make it the preferable choice anyway.

R'osity already knows who the Member is, and what the MessageID/ReplyID is. All an Edit function would require is:

1. The ability to call up the stored text in a multi-line text box (such as the Reply box);
2. Allow the Member to make changes; and
3. Issue an UPDATE statement to the backend database to replace the message.

Of course, if R'osity wanted to keep previous versions of the post, they could substitute the new post's ReplyID for the MessageID and keep the old one for posterity.

Whereas Tim has procliamed his affection for databasing in the past, this should be an easy option to implement; given his technical background.

"I think we can allow the only method of edit we have here at Renderosity which is to delete."

Since Delete is "the only method of edit we have", would that not suggest that Editing may be a prudent addition? If you had a choice, would you edit or delete your posts if you made a mistake?

Forum threads are, in many ways, like pages in an article or chapters in a book - they tend to build off one another; as long as the thread stays on topic. The initial post (aka the Prologue or First Chapter) sets the scene, general tone, etc, of what follows. By being able to delete posts, you are effectively reducing the overall benefit of the thread by removing, oftentimes, the key points that the rest build off of. Imagine what would be lost if the article/book/whatever you are reading suddenly lost the introduction and/or several paragraphs/chapters before you finished it. Would it make as much sense to you if some of the key points throughout were stricken?

If the post has no merit, then when just "cloak" it vs actually deleting it? Obviously, for it to consume resources, it must have something beneficial to offer or it is nothing but a waste of space. Likewise, if you can "cloak" a post, you can also maintain a history of changes as well; it just takes a little more effort to do so.

Since 95% of all other forum software contain the ability to Edit a post, there is obviously a reason for having it; or else why bother coding it in the first place?

How many posts have you seen that contain valid points, but may temporarily digress into a flame, and the whole post is removed? Would it not be better to be able to go in and strike out the flame and keep the rest vs losing everything in the post?

But, even though the Admins/Mods can see it, the Members can't.. read the first post.

R'osity could restrict the Edit and/or Delete from the first (or any) post that has been responded to. That should avoid any abuse.

"While I would love an edit button, I know there is a concern that members would say something flaming and then later edit it out and try to look innocent about the whole thing."

And, what prevents them from Deleting it altogether? Deleting still poses more problems than simple Editing, IMHO.

"To start the discussion on topic, my thinking is that the original poster should have the right to delete a message they have had second thoughts about."

This would make a good argument for something else that is sorely needed: an EDIT function.

If Members could edit what they have said vs completely deleting it, I could understand. Likewise, instead of wielding an iron fist, the Admins/Mods/Coords/etc could Edit out any TOS-violating commentary while leaving the pertinent parts of a post intact so the conversation could continue without the, usually, unnecessary locking of threads; liberally used to squelch topics of Member - but maybe not PTB - interest.

The lack of Editing is a serious oversight and a serious drawback to the numerous other fora software available on the Net.

I would much rather see an Edit vs a Delete function, IMHO.

Oh, I thought it was an official request! ;0)

Regardless, now it is available for everyone to comment on.

"People sometimes do want to save gallery pages, so that they don't have to go online every time to see the images over a slow phone-bill-expensive dialup line. For example, I save a copy of every gallery page that I find that uses any of my models." That is why. To view content offline.

SpywareBlaster is another helpful preventative measure. It sets kill bits in the registry to stop spyware from installing.

"Why this is even turned ON as a default setting for IE is beyond me."

Because if it was not on, 99.9% of the users would be calling/writing to find out how to turn it on because they do not like to read nor try to find out for themselves. It is a no-win situation.