- This topic has 28 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
If the MODS edit your post, they write “EDITED.”
Did it occur to you that this is something that might be embarrassing to the person, as you are publicizing the fact that he wrote something that (in your opinion) was inappropriate? What is the purpose of publicizing the fact that his post was edited?If they wouldn’t write “edited”, you (or someone else) would complain that they edited your post without making a note of it.
Editing could be as simple as removing a hyperlink.
MODS: You have permission to edit my posts and to use the word “EDITED”.
mik5 – It’s funny you say that because on that specific post I was actually contemplating whether or not to write edited (and on other posts at other times as well). I have gotten so much grief from people when the edit isn’t marked, that I was almost afraid not to, so I apologize, because I had really wanted to just leave it without.
I’ve seen folks complain (in the early days of the CR) that their edited comment wasn’t marked as edited. (Wolf was one such poster.)
Another reason for writing “edited” is that sometimes the meaning of the remaining post might be some what different than it would be with the “edited” part. So it’s important for the readers to realize that the post might not mean exactly what it sounds like it means (or at least the connotation might be somewhat different).
There were times when I was concerned about that fact with posts of mine that were edited (although usually nothing major; just a slightly different connotation), so I think it’s good that the word “edited” is there.
And I agree with those who wrote that there can be many different reasons for a post to be edited so it’s not necessarily something to be embarrassed about.
Two things that I think could be a problem are the following:
1.If a moderator deletes a post because he thinks it’s L”H, and writes “edited because of l”h”, he has now written either Motzei sheim ra or loshon hora about the poster, and there is no reason for it, since the post was deleted anyhow, so it’s unnecessary for everyone to know that the Moderator thinks he wrote something that was l”h. In some cases, it is also rechilus.
2. On the other hand, if the moderator posts a post that he thinks is loshon hora and then labels it as such, that is also loshon hora. If he really thinks it’s loshon hora, then shouldn’t he just delete it and send a private message to the person if he thinks it’s necessary?
If someone accuses the Mods of speaking Lashon Hara, rechilus of motzi shem ra, I think that would be Lashon Hara, or rechilus or motzi shem ra.
If somone accuses the mods of not deleting a piece of lashon hara or richilus or motzi shem ra, that would also be lashon hara or rechilus or motzi shem ra.
If someone always finds lashon hara on a certain site, that would be…
LF – sorry but you’re wrong. If someone is speaking l”h, you have an obligation to correct them according to halacha.
According to that statement the person who’s lashon hora was deleted would still need to be informed so they could do tshuva.
Oh and according to your logic, your comment would be loshon hora. Well actually, that’s only true if you were referring to my comment which may not have been the case. (Possibly avak l”h though in any case).
But you don’t have to worry since you were wrong anyhow so your comment was not l”h 🙂
Also, according to your logic, anytime you express your disagreement with someone in the CR, you are guilty of L”H as well.
But again, fortunately for you, you were wrong, so again you don’t have to worry. 🙂
“According to that statement the person who’s lashon hora was deleted would still need to be informed so they could do tshuva.”
Very true, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. My point was that if the l”h was not public, the “mussar” should be given privately since there is no toeles to its being public and it can actually do harm since others might assume that l”h was spoken about them and it causes ill-will amongst people.
There is also less of a toeles involved in such a case since the l”h doesn’t have to be gotten rid of. When I speak out against l”h, my point is to get rid of the l”h which would not be relevant in such a case.
On the other hand, if the l”h is public, then the mussar has to be public so that all those reading it will be aware that it is l”h. And so that someone will do something about it and get rid of it.
The moderators have the ability to choose what is made public and what is made private. If they feel that something is l”h, they can choose not to post it and to give the mussar privately (if they feel it is necessary).
btw, how can I make my smileys look like smileys and not like boxes?
Why are you so convinced that there is Loshon Horo when talking about an anonymous online persona? Neither the writer nor the reader knows the person you are talking about.
Obviously, there is a minority of posters who people do know in real life who may be reading.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/lashon-hora-in-the-cr/#post-1073872“Why are you so convinced that there is Loshon Horo when talking about an anonymous online persona?”
1. If you are correct, then the person themselves couldn’t have been speaking l”h in the first place (since it was also about an anonymous online persona), so in that case, it would have been onaas devarim.
2. As you pointed out, some people do know who people are in real life.
3. I don’t think that you are right. In the coffee room, everyone has an identity and a name and is interacting with others. The fact that they use a different name here than they do elsewhere is irrelevant. By speaking l”h about someone, you are causing others to view them differently and to treat them differently at least in the Coffee Room.
And I think that I have actually seen this happen to some extent.
4. The main problem I have with it is that it can cause or increase machlokes, since then someone thinks you wrote something bad about them and maybe you didn’t, or maybe it wasn’t as bad as they think, or maybe it wasn’t bad at all and is being misunderstood by the moderators.
If it were posted and the person misunderstood it, the other person would have a chance to explain, but this way they don’t, so the other person can be left thinking the first person said something bad about them when they didn’t or when it wasn’t as bad as they thought.
It can be worse sometimes to hint that someone said something bad about you without saying what it was. But obviously, if someone really thinks that something is l”h, the best is to simply delete with no (public) comment.
4. The main problem I have with it is that it can cause or increase machlokes, since then someone thinks you wrote something bad about them and maybe you didn’t, or maybe it wasn’t as bad as they think, or maybe it wasn’t bad at all and is being misunderstood by the moderators.
This is not a CR modding/editing problem. Someone who feels this way when posts are edited needs to find real life support.
Thank you
“This is not a CR modding/editing problem. Someone who feels this way when posts are edited needs to find real life support.”
We weren’t talking about posts being edited. I already said that I had no problem with that.
We weren’t talking about posts being edited.
The thread is titled “being edited…”
Your statement was, “4. The main problem I have with it…” The word “it” can only be referencing an edit.Maybe not your edit, hence the comment, “when posts are edited” as opposed to “when your posts are edited”, regardless, your point was clear and the response stands.“so the other person can be left thinking the first person said something bad about them when they didn’t or when it wasn’t as bad as they thought.”
Why would you automatically assume that if a post was edited then it must have said something bad about you?
There are probably a billion reasons for a post to be edited
Meno, to answer your question, I was referring to case #1 in post #488. I was specifically referring to a situation in which a moderators writes “edited due to l”H” on Poster B’s post that follows Poster A’s post attacking Poster B. I think that it is reasonable to assume that Poster A is now likely to assume that Poster B’s post was l”h about Poster A. Whether or not this is true, it is rechilus and can lead to or increase machlokes.
29 & Mod – I appreciate your phrasing your comments so politely.
As I am sure you are aware, not all posts refer to the OP. They often refer to the previous posts. If you follow the thread, you can see what that post was in reference to.
I started out by writing 4. That is because it was a continuation of the previous post where I listed three answers. Those 3 (and then 4) answers were a response to the question that Yekke had asked me in the post immediately preceding mine. His question was in response to my post #1260488.
In post #1260487, I had already given my opinion regarded the case mentioned in the OP. In #1260488, I started discussing another (similar) topic. Yekke then asked a question about it (#710) and I responded to him in #’s 767 and #897.
If you read the thread carefully, you will see that it is clear what I was talking about.
Meno, am I clear now? Do you understand now what I meant in post #090 and what it was said in reference to? Please let me know. Thanks!
order in which the above posts were written:
1. #248
2. #251
3. #253
In case numbers change as things are posted:
1. Starts off something like, “29 and Meno, thanks for the polite responses
2. Starts off, “Meno, to answer your question
Cool – the numbers don’t change. I think I have figured out now how you can tell the order in which posts are written – I think the numbers go in order of how they were written. (although they seem to skip – maybe because of posts in other threads).
Crystal clear
Great! Thanks!
Thank you moderators or Editor or whoever it is whom I owe a thank you to!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.