a Goodbye from me

[sledger]

24 hours notice is plenty imo, otherwise you could end up with all sorts of confusion if people started to update posts they made a few years ago then others tried to read the threads back.

 

[Mr Casson]

On a different note, I don't see why cricketweb shouldn't allow members to have their past posts deleted if they wish. I also noticed that you cannot edit or delete posts after more than 24 hours (some thing which wasn't always there on cricketweb). I find this very weird in general. Most places on the net I have been at allows you to do this. I think it is only legitimate to not deny members from having this option. That's my take on it.

Nah that's ridiculous, to be blunt. You can't take back something you said in real life; why bother on the Internet?

 

[Pratters]

24 hours notice is plenty imo, otherwise you could end up with all sorts of confusion if people started to update posts they made a few years ago then others tried to read the threads back.

The relevant point being discussed exists in the quotes usually and so this isn't an issue for me. Also there is the post counts being deleted issue. I don't think post counts is that important and the judgement of the member posting should be adhered to (some thing which can change after 24 hours) as to whether he should edit or delete a post in my opinion.

 

[sledger]

as casson said, you cant change what you said in the past, even if you change the way you feel about it.

 

[James]

24 hours notice is plenty imo, otherwise you could end up with all sorts of confusion if people started to update posts they made a few years ago then others tried to read the threads back.

Exactly right,

On a different note, I don't see why cricketweb shouldn't allow members to have their past posts deleted if they wish.

Can you imagine if someones posts were deleted, what it would cause to older threads that that member has contributed to.

There's 0% chance of a members posts being deleted if they leave. It simply won't happen.

 

[Mr Casson]

Plus it would also cause every thread that the person started to be deleted as well, which would delete other peoples' discussions and would not really be fair honestly.

 

[sledger]

yeah exactly, mods probs have more interesting things to do than go round aimlessly deleting threads and posts anyway i would have thought...


actually, speaking of mods, where has pickup been recently? not seen him online for a while now.

 

[Mr Casson]

actually, speaking of mods, where has pickup been recently? not seen him online for a while now.

Finally got his England call up.

 

[sledger]

about damn time really.

 

[Pratters]

Can you imagine if someones posts were deleted, what it would cause to older threads that that member has contributed to.

Wouldn't make a huge difference as point being discussed would exist in quotes except when the thread was started by the person himself. I can see some one wanting their earlier posts edited/deleted very practically like Hinton did here. For the moment, I don't have a problem with my older posts or them being there on the forum and so it is not a huge issue for me personally though.

Casson: I don't see a huge deal with it frankly. Happens in most other places. If it is so concerning, editing of initial post of threads to some thing like *post removed* can be requested from the person concerned himself or some other solution can be found.

Any way, I didn't intend to make a big deal of this topic and so will not talk more on it right now.

 

[Mr Casson]

Why should one person have the right to have their posts deleted and in doing so be able to delete other people's posts? In that situation who can you give preference to? The only right thing to do is leave all posts, as the authors consented when they clicked the 'submit' button. If there is a problem with something you said, you shouldn't have posted it.

No point kicking up a stink about it two years later when it would serve no purpose except to annoy.

 

[sledger]

Happens in most other places

nobody is making you stick around these parts.

 

[Pratters]

nobody is making you stick around these parts.

Stupid of you to say that. Just because you don't like x of a forum or like y policy of another forum will in all likelihood have little bearing on whether you stick around a forum as there are so many variables which decide that.

 

[ash chaulk]

he'll be back

 

[benchmark00]

The issue is who actually 'owns' the posts? After one posts on cricketweb, does the post become property of Nixon, or of the poster?

If it's the latter, surely they can manipulate the posts in whatever fashion they wish, however if it belongs to Nixon, he too can manipulate (or not manipulate in this case) the post.


Yeah, think about that...

 

[Langeveldt]

The issue is who actually 'owns' the posts? After one posts on cricketweb, does the post become property of Nixon, or of the poster?

If it's the latter, surely they can manipulate the posts in whatever fashion they wish, however if it belongs to Nixon, he too can manipulate (or not manipulate in this case) the post.


Yeah, think about that...

I don't care who owns my posts, as long as its not Mr Mxyrik

 

[benchmark00]

He owns nothing other than a big pile of indecency.

 

[Craig]

 

[lord_of_darkness]

hinton my mum said she loves you and your posts.. would you please consider staying for her sake.. which indirectly affects my sake?

 

[lord_of_darkness]

Originally Posted by marc71178
Where will it end if someone like Chris feels so strongly about the treatment he's received from the "usual suspects"?

Oh god.. that comment was as bad as Paris Hiltons debut album..