As soon as a post is rec'd

it shouldn't be able to be edited, or a person has rec'd a post that could suddenly be adjusted into something else.

Russ, this needs a blocker on it, whereby if a post is rec'd it is locked.

I only discovered this was possible, when I posted and it was rec'd. It has some punctual errors, a missed capital at the start of a sentence, etc. I went back to my post, after it was rec'd and I was able to correct the errors.

However, I could have, but I'm not malicious and not saying many are, totally changed what I posted and it would have still been rec'd. That has to be wrong, hasn't it?

-m.

Once a post is made it shouldn't be able to be edited at all.

Originally posted by adramforall
Once a post is made it shouldn't be able to be edited at all.

I agree

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
I agree

Haha I see what you did there 😛

Originally posted by adramforall
Once a post is made it shouldn't be able to be edited at all.

Certainly a "rec'd" post shouldn't be able to be edited. It has been rec'd for a purpose my somebody else for content. If that content is fully altered then the rec is invalid, or superfluous. That was my point.

Nothing wrong with altering a post, especially to correct grammar and small content mis-alignments, in general.

-m.

Does anyone have any reason to believe that any significant number of rec'd posts were edited to write completely different things?

Much better to let people edit to correct typos and grammar, and not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Originally posted by Palynka
and not throw the baby out with the bath water.

might not be a bad thing the world is over vastly over populated...

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
I agree

Brilliant 😵

Originally posted by trev33
might not be a bad thing the world is over vastly over populated...

Exactly. In fact I started a thread about this in GF - please go wreck it. 😛

If you go to the 'blogs', anything posted can't be edited........ I wonder why that is?

Somewhat in the same vain, what is the point of rec'd posts anyways?
As far as I know, there isn't any reward for the most rec'd post per month or better yet - per year....

Why not reward the highest rec'd poster with some type of tag/label, similar to tournament winner?

Originally posted by PureRWandB
Somewhat in the same vain, [b]what is the point of rec'd posts anyways?
As far as I know, there isn't any reward for the most rec'd post per month or better yet - per year....

Why not reward the highest rec'd poster with some type of tag/label, similar to tournament winner?[/b]

The highest wrecker has the cleanest bottom.

That is their reward