-2

Yesterday's edit on this post.

When the post was made, the mods at the time felt it was ok... 6 years ago.

Meantime, there are questions with 10x the views where my post has endured for 8 years with obvious typographical errors, yet it's never been touched, even with a mod at the time commenting.

If there isn't such a rule, one should be considered where posts are grandfathered in their current state and just left alone. First, beyond a certain age, editing a post for clarity is moot after a post has seen most of it's lifetime of traffic. Second, it will absolutely reduce the work of moderators if they only have to consider a set amount of time worth of posts, as opposed to the current "for all time".

Secondly, a more important point

On the point of the reason for the edit, I was under the impression that changing the content of a post was not allowed.

The post was written that way for a very specific reason. The content was changed not for accuracy, clarity or rules, but based entirely upon opinion.

Unless there's now a rule against joking, or there's a campaign for eliminating jokes from the subforum...

...then this post should not have been changed at all, based on the jokes interpreted or perceived tastelessness, and should be changed back.

  • 2
    SE is supposed to be a repository of knowledge, it doesn't matter how old posts are (e. g. one reason shopping recommendations are off topic) and they are all up for curation. It's clearly encouraged and got its own badge (Archaeologist). That's also why editing a post for clarity is never moot. Also, we are all just volunteers and can't edit all posts at once (and not only mods are editing). SE is not a forum, Parenting.SE not a subforum. I also don't see a bug report in post, so why that tag? – Anne Daunted Apr 22 at 20:22
  • Bug was a sarcastic point, but I changed it. I've hollered about the first point multiple times and find it pointless when "changes for clarity" are made to a decade old post that has made it's point over thousands of views. I understand the reason, yet I'm not a fan of it. Otherwise, any comment on my second point? – monsto Apr 22 at 21:07
  • 4
    Regarding the second point, yep, the new Code of Conduct: "Avoid sarcasm and be careful with jokes — tone is hard to decipher online." – Andrew T. Apr 23 at 8:57
2

There is no statute of limitations protecting tactless (or at least questionable) content on SE.

To a mother asking how to discuss the suicide of her husband to their children, you stated

As the adult, as the mother, you are the rock. you are the rock No, not that rock, I mean that you are an island of stability in whatever sea they sail. Again, that's no ancient tribal secret, but I still needs to be said aloud.

What the mods thought of it years ago doesn't particularly impact how it reads (to me) today. Look at how much the MeToo movement has changed our culture in a few short years. "You look so sexy in that dress!" from a boss doesn't fly anymore. But that may be neither here nor there.

I think a joke in an answer addressed to a grieving mother about being "The Rock" is in poor taste, so I removed it. Yes, I confess, I removed it because I, personally, myself, thought it was in poor taste. You can roll back the edit if you are feeling wronged. But I will speak to the other mods if I see that you've done so, and you can get second and third opinions. If you desire, you can even kick it up to a CM.

On the point of the reason for the edit, I was under the impression that changing the content of a post was not allowed.

Edits that improve the post are fine at any time, as long as they do not change the intent of the post. My edit doesn't change the intent of your answer unless you were attempting to make light of her situation.

  • 1
    Why not just say "Lighten up"? It's about as tactful. If you think joking in the face of death and children is successful, might you not be wrong? Is there the merest possibility? If there is, what harm is there in removing the joke? If there isn't even the merest possibility, that should give you pause about your self-assesment skills. – anongoodnurse Apr 24 at 2:54
  • It's a tactic I use, successfully, in intense situations: quick humor to break things up a bit. When debating with someone, facing heightened emotions, etc, light humor allows a bit of release at a time where people can burn out, creating ancillary problems to deal with. But hey . . . It's your "repository", I'm just a guy with some old-ass posts that are clearly now subject to arbitrary change. I wish you luck in gentrifying the humor and eradicating that which you perceive as unseemly. Goodbye. – monsto Apr 24 at 2:55
  • 1
    Regarding wishing me good luck, I say "Thanks." Mods need all the luck they can get. – anongoodnurse Apr 24 at 2:57
  • Because saying "Lighten up" is truly and completely tasteless and you know it. Purposefully conflating quick humor with a complete lack of decorum doesn't help. But the reality is that the entire edit was 100% based on nothing but opinion. In your opinion it was out of place. And since it was your opinion, then it should be changed to fit what you believe to be in 'better' taste. It's not a slippery slope, it is actual big-brotherism, and it's a terrible mindset for monitoring a "repository of information". – monsto Apr 24 at 4:39
  • 1
    @monsto In case you wonder, why your answer was edited now, the reason is that a new answer bumped the question to the front page. Also, this is an international site and as much as I value The Rock, not everyone may know him (or enough to recognize him) and understand the joke. – Anne Daunted Apr 24 at 12:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .