Policy Discussion: moderators editing players' posts

[Zindaras]

1: Yes. They just clog the thread.
2: No.
3: Yes.
4: No. Personal attacks are relevant to the game. I think it would be bad to edit them out.
5: No. Same as spellchecking, it's all in the details, it doesn't clog up space or bother people that much.
6: Personal information is gone as soon as I see it. Accidental outing of role only if I am really quick, same as Kelly.
7: Yes.
8: Depends on what it is. I'd most assuredly add a notice about it at the end of the post, though.

[Zindaras]

Addition to my earlier post: I only fix broken quote tags and other things that can be really annoying.

[Zindaras]

This is a bit of a tangent, but I'd like to ask it anyway:

How do you think vote counts should be done? I personally prefer seeing the mod post them, so I can use the View All Posts By User function to make a voting analysis, but I see a lot of people editing them in.

[Zindaras]

This is a bit of a tangent, but I'd like to ask it anyway:

How do you think vote counts should be done? I personally prefer seeing the mod post them, so I can use the View All Posts By User function to make a voting analysis, but I see a lot of people editing them in.

I've not seen a lot of it happening, but I suspect that's because I'm religious about getting a new post up near the top of each new page. Usually players start posting vote counts (hopefully marked "unofficial") when the mod starts to drift off or be absent, or posting goes nuts for a brief time (see the deadline period of Methodical Mafia's Day 1, when we cranked out like 5 pages in 12 hours).

I mean mods editing vote counts in at the top of a page.