Suggestion for the admins

Hey admins, could we please look into shortening the edit window for posts? Right now, it’s set to 90 minutes.
It’s honestly getting a bit frustrating because I’ve already picked up two red cards and a yellow one just while trying to fix my own posts. One moderator told me I shouldn't be complaining about waiting out those 90 minutes, even though in my case, I only needed an extra minute or two to clean things up.
My suggestion is to reduce that edit timer, but instead of handing out cards immediately during that window, wait until the time actually expires before taking action.
I’m actually at risk of getting another card from some eagle-eyed moderator right now because I posted three times in a row in the politics section. I want to merge them all into one single post, but I can't do it instantly—I need just a few minutes to get it right. That's why I'm asking you to please consider this idea.

I can't say I agree with you on this one...

I don't see how that would actually help.
In my view, users need a window of time to edit their posts, and that 90-minute buffer is perfectly reasonable.

You could just suggest it—or ask the moderators directly—that they hold off for a bit after issuing a ban.

That’s my take, anyway. Forgive me if I'm overstepping, I know I wasn't asked...

Look, you shouldn't—or at least, you really shouldn't—be getting flagged just because you decided to merge a couple of posts or fix a quick typo. That’s totally fine. But, if you start playing games by deleting entire posts or cutting out chunks of text in a way that messes with the flow of the conversation—like if someone already replied to what you said and suddenly your point is gone—that’s a different story. Or, even worse, if you're using the edit button to dodge a penalty, like posting an insult just long enough for someone to see it before scrubbing it to stay under the radar, or if you're using the feature in some other shady way... yeah, that’s when the mods are going to step in and hand out a strike. But seriously, if you're just tidying up your thoughts or combining things to make them easier to read, there should be no issue at all and you definitely shouldn't be punished for it.

So, I actually ended up getting flagged for this. My post wasn't even finished yet—I was just in the middle of editing it. It would have only taken a few more minutes. Plus, nobody had even replied to me yet.
Since the post got nuked, all I can really do is drop a link to the private message. (Yeah, yeah, I know, even that’s technically against the rules.)
http://www.reddit.com/private.php?do=showpm&pmid=24626766

That link to your private message won't work because nobody else can see your DMs, whether you have the link or not.
However, you could always just post the content of the moderator warning itself—you know, that notification you received regarding your account standing.

On another note, I find the issue of shortening the edit window to be much more significant and widespread than your current predicament. Personally, I’d also love to see it reduced to, say, thirty minutes, simply so people can't run amok in threads by constantly revising their posts. That said, I would find it absolutely unacceptable if they implemented a clause granting immunity to posts until the edit timer runs out. If that happened, I'm certain we'd see people baiting others during heated arguments, only to delete insults once they've already been read, all within that twenty-nine-minute window. That shouldn't be allowed, and frankly, it can't be. There is a massive difference between editing to fix a typo, adding a link, or refining a thought, and the issue of harassment or verbal abuse. In cases like those, I believe the current rules should remain as they are, ensuring that even in the heat of an online argument, users are still held accountable for what they publish.

William Bennett53 said:That private message link won't work because nobody can see your DMs, whether there's a link or not.
But hey, you could just post the actual moderator warning itself—you know, the one you got when you were flagged.

Also, in my opinion, the whole debate about shortening the edit window is way bigger and more important than this specific issue you're dealing with. I’d love to see it cut down to, say, thirty minutes so people don't use late edits to mess up entire threads. However, I personally couldn't stand it if they added a rule saying posts shouldn't be punished until the edit timer runs out. If that happened, I'm certain people would spend the heat of an argument trolling their opponents, only to delete insults after 29 minutes. And honestly, that just shouldn't fly. There's a huge difference between editing to fix a typo, adding a link, or refining a thought, and actually being offensive. For violations like that, I think it's better to leave things as they are so users still have to watch what they say, even during an internet flame war.

Maybe we could introduce a rule where a post gets penalized if someone quotes it. That would basically mean enough people on the forum actually saw it.😉
Here is that controversial post that got flagged. It was actually mid-edit at the time. You can tell by the unfinished last sentence. Nobody had quoted it yet, and it had only been a couple of minutes.
http://www.reddit.com/private.php?do=showpm&pmid=24625218
That's the gist of it. Basically, if a post hasn't been quoted, it isn't hate speech or harassment (which are the big offenses)—it's just a post in the middle of being edited. Why get flagged immediately?
Dorian Gray, please don't take this as an attack on you as a moderator .😉I knew this kind of thing was bound to happen eventually.

I didn't even interpret it as an attack on me... 🤷

The private message links aren't working... you'll have to just copy and paste if you want to show anything.

But you still have a fundamental flaw in your logic. Just because someone hasn't quoted a post doesn't mean it went unnoticed. In fact, since users are constantly urged not to engage with trolls, many people who see a full thread simply choose not to quote it specifically to avoid fueling a wave of negativity. I believe a much more effective solution would be to refrain from publishing half-finished posts altogether. I'm not quite sure why you assume a post containing an incomplete sentence is obviously still being edited. Why not simply finish the thought before hitting publish?

William Bennett53 said:I didn't even realize it was an attack on me... 🤷

Private message links don't work here... you have to copy and paste if you want to show something.

But there's still a hole in your logic—just because someone quoted a post doesn't mean nobody saw it. In fact, since users are always told not to feed the trolls, a lot of people who see the whole thing won't quote it just to avoid sparking a massive flame war. I honestly think a better solution would be to not publish half-finished posts. I don't get why you think a post with an unfinished sentence is obviously still being edited. Why not just finish it before hitting post?

It all happened within a single minute. Everything went down in that tiny window of time. 🙂
Writing on my phone always leads to typos. That’s why I’m constantly editing. The screen is just too small for me. Yesterday, I had a nightmare with the site. I’ll finish a post, see something looks off, and then try to fix it. I really should be using a desktop or a laptop all the time, but that’s just not realistic for me.

Here is the problematic post:
You have received an infraction at Reddit
Dear granitefalcon26,

You have received an infraction at Reddit.

Reason: Trolling (continuing a personal argument after a moderator warning)
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 35 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=49194448
Quote:
Quote:
andrijakos says: Check out the post
Thank you rustydrifter10. I totally agree with what was said.

My 2 cents. Maybe red Rock isn't because of political views, but just because of the color of the card he handed out?

Because if we’re splitting this thread into two camps, Rock definitely can't be the "red" one. He's on the side supporting the new Ukrainian government. And plenty of people on that side accuse Russia of trying to revive the USSR.
So, if anyone needs to be the "red" one, it's me (though I'm not).

Just change the title of this thread, whatever. God knows.

As for the moderators, they are human beings. But a certain number of participants feel like the moderation isn't always impartial. It's just human nature—when you're fired up about a topic, you tend to spot every mistake your opponent makes while ignoring them when your own side does it. We might be wrong, but this is a subforum specifically for discussing this topic.

I already mentioned that I think it would be best if Rock shared his opinions on the thread without actually moderating it. It's a case of the few against the many.

PS: Yeah, where is Powerlock? He was born to moderate this thread.
@granitefalcon26
It's because you're being subjective. Now you're claiming I'm defending Rock just because we're on the same side regarding the Ukraine thread. Big deal. Out of a hundred threads, we've ended up on the same one once.
You could say that about any moderator. One side will always feel like the moderator is handing out cards only to the opposing side. That's just subjectivity and it's completely inaccurate. If someone uses ad hominem arguments, they get a card for that, not because of which "side" they are on like you think.
If you think someone is trolling or being insulting, just click the little icon and report it.
That's crazy
All the Best,
Reddit
The bolded part shows an unfinished sentence. This happens to me all the time when I'm on my phone—I'll hit send, but the message won't go through because of a connection error with the server. Then I have to rewrite the whole thing. Because of that, sometimes I'll end up sending half a post, then immediately edit it to send the full version.
__________________

Hey, since you mentioned that you don't take it personally, I was reminded of that warning you received here...
If you're referring to the moderation action you received from me, it's because you continued a thread two hours after I had already posted a warning. You had plenty of time to see the notice, process it, and simply choose not to continue the discussion. That was the actual expectation. Instead, you submitted a post that served as a direct continuation of a locked conversation; no amount of editing can justify that, as this wasn't a case where you simply lost your train of thought mid-sentence and needed to fix a minor error.

We all understand the issues with the server, but those technical glitches are an argument for maintaining our current edit window, not for shortening it. Furthermore, there is no mention of whether someone actually stopped trolling or being insulting. The mere fact that someone was able to issue a moderation strike at the exact same time a post went up proves that the content had already been read—whether it was quoted by someone else or not, the idea had already spread.

William Bennett53 said:Look, you mentioned earlier that you don't take this personally, which reminded me of that warning you got here...
If you're talking about the warning I gave you, you kept pushing an argument two hours after I posted the notice. You had plenty of time to see the warning, process it, and just choose not to reply. That was the move. Instead, you posted something that was basically just a continuation of the banned thread. No amount of editing fixes that—it wasn't a case of you accidentally slipping up mid-sentence; you intentionally kept the momentum going.

We all know what's happening with the server, but server issues are a reason to keep the edit window as it is, not a reason to shorten it. Plus, nobody is actually addressing the issue of stopping the trolling or insults. The fact that someone managed to get a warning issued right as a post went up proves that someone already read it, meaning the idea had already spread (whether they quoted it or not).

Look, I’m not sweating the warning itself. What bothers me is how the whole thing went down in literally sixty seconds. That's what bugs me. You can tell from my last sentence I was going to edit the post, but honestly, I could have just deleted the whole thing, which is exactly what I ended up doing. Also, your warning was on the previous page. When you're typing on a phone and the server is acting up, it's impossible to catch everything. You look at the posts on the last page and reply to the most recent one, all while praying to God that the post even goes through. You write half, then finish the other half in an edit once you've cleaned up any trolling bits.
BTW, calling it a "personal attack" isn't really fair either, especially since people constantly try to deflect by pointing out how to report a post instead. Everyone does it.

I fail to see the logic here... if your intention was to edit a draft before it went live, then you should have simply edited it and then hit publish. And as I mentioned previously, if you were planning on editing, deleting, or just abandoning the post entirely, you could have done so before the moderation took place. The mere fact that it was flagged proves it was seen.

Furthermore, from a purely technical standpoint, my warning appeared on this very same page just four or five posts ago, and you managed to squeeze in another post after that warning was issued.
Fine, I realize we are hyper-focusing on your specific situation right now, even though your initiative is attempting to move past it. That’s fine. However, in my personal opinion, your current line of reasoning isn't quite strong enough to push through the idea of removing post restrictions before the edit window expires.

William Bennett53 said:I have to disagree... if you want to fix up a post before it goes live, just edit it first and then hit publish. And like I said, if you were planning on editing it, deleting it, or just changing your mind, you could have done that before getting flagged. The fact that you got flagged proves someone actually saw it.

Plus, strictly speaking, my warning was on the same page about 4 or 5 posts back, and you already made another post after that warning went up.
Look, I get it—we’re focusing way too much on your specific situation right now, even though your idea is trying to move past that. That's fine. But personally, I don't think your current arguments are strong enough to push through the idea of letting people edit posts until the timer runs out.

My suggestion is either to shorten the editing window or give users a few minutes to make adjustments. I got this strike within seconds. Honestly, I doubt anyone even read it; there wasn't even a quote response.
Technically, I could end up getting a strike every single time before I even get a chance to clean up a post.
It actually happened to me once on a politics thread. I sent a DM to the moderator explaining the post was basically a typo, and they cleared it because it had only been a few seconds. The whole thing happened in under a minute.
rustydrifter10, please, I'd love to hear what you think. It's just really frustrating to get slapped with a strike within seconds of posting.

First it was a minute, now it’s just a few seconds... at this rate, I'll end up having handed out a penalty before the official announcement even hits.
In reality, it was closer to three minutes.
And honestly, the only edit that would have actually helped that post was just deleting it entirely.

Besides, looking at the big picture, this whole thread is nothing more than a grievance about a penalty.

William Bennett53 said:It was a few minutes at first, now it’s just seconds... I'll probably end up getting a penalty before I can even finish typing this.
In reality, it was closer to three minutes.
And honestly, the only "edit" that would have helped that post was just deleting it entirely.

Plus, looking at it now, this whole thread is basically just one big complaint about getting flagged.

Three minutes Look, everything's been said. It was just one single sentence that I was planning to edit (well, delete).

How long do you two color-coded types actually have to edit your posts? I remember pretty clearly that Stinger can go back and scrub his nonsense even after 5 or 6 hours have passed—so now I’m genuinely curious, how long does this window actually stay open for you guys?

granitefalcon26 said:Three minutes is all it took. It was just one single sentence I had intended to edit out later.

granitefalcon26, let’s settle this once and for all so we can move on: you received a warning because the post was already live and visible. It wasn't about one specific sentence; it was the entire post. Removing a single line wouldn't have changed the fact that the post was published (I see you're calling for rustydrifter10 to step in—she follows the site rules and will chime in if she deems it necessary). Therefore, I suggest once more that you refrain from posting anything with the intention of editing it later, and there won't be any issues.

If possible, can we move past this? I'd like to return to the original topic from the first post: the possibility of reducing the window allowed for editing posts.

granitefalcon26 said:In theory, I could end up getting flagged every single time before I even get a chance to go back and edit my post.

Well, sure you can, provided you actually broke a rule. Using the edit button isn't some kind of requirement, and there’s no way for the moderators to know if you’re planning to use it or not. Once you hit 'post,' that thought is out there in the world—it's considered finished, which means it's open to being commented on or even sanctioned accordingly.

Look, some people are browsing on their phones and might miss a warning flag, someone else might be colorblind and won't notice if text was highlighted in a certain color, or maybe someone is just scrolling straight to the last page and misses a warning posted on the previous one... At the end of the day, that's on the user. You don't need a formal strike for someone to recognize that what you wrote shouldn't have been said; the content itself makes it clear you were violating the guidelines set by the moderator in that PDF. If you're going to jump into a discussion—especially an appeal thread—you really ought to read the whole thing first. Honestly, if you feel like using a phone makes it too impractical for you to participate properly, it might be better to switch to a device that gives you the full picture. Either way, it doesn't excuse the behavior.

The truth is, your post was trolling in more than just one sentence; it wasn't just about that final line you wanted to fix. You didn't need a formal warning to realize that the tone of the conversation was totally unacceptable and that you were risking a strike from the moment you clicked submit.

Alright. I’m done talking about the cardboard. My actual suggestion is that you just scrap the ability to edit posts entirely, because I honestly don't see the point in having it.

Look, you might not see the point in it, but for a lot of us, this feature is actually pretty helpful and I don't think there's any reason to scrap it. We could sit here and debate whether we should scale it back, but honestly, we’ve already tried that kind of initiative before and it didn't change a thing. Besides, given how glitchy the servers have been lately with all those constant errors, I’m not even sure cutting it is the right move—if the forum stays down for too long, the window to make edits expires, leaving us stuck with posts full of typos or broken links.