Lambda the Ultimate

I just wanted to object the OP, with a counter-example of "I am going to edit this to a reply later", but you made it first.
I do not insist on supporting full unification for posts, but at least transparent promises look ok :-)
On the other hand, update-only mode has a benefit of being mechanically enforcable (and also, it helps to avoid some race conditions by being monotonic (at least syntactically), though a natural language is too powerful to imply a semantic monotonicity :-) ).

Not that I don't always get it right the first time around, but I like having that option just in case.

Have been through this same issue on a number of forii. Here's the solutions I've seen:

1. No edit after submit
2. Edit until someone replies to your message
3. Edit until some arbitrary elapsed time
4. Edit always, with history trail of the edits
5. Edit always

I believe LtU is using option 2, i.e. ordinary registered users can only edit their own comments until someone replies to them. (At least that's the intended behavior; I can't swear that configuration drift hasn't changed it...)

I don't believe Drupal has any ability to track comment change history, so #4 is probably not practical.

My impression is that people have usually used the power to change their comments fairly responsibly, so my own inclination is to leave things as they are unless there are serious problems. Perhaps if someone notices a comment change in a questionable way, they could post a polite notice to the commenter mentioning that they've been busted :) That way, we can get an idea for how often it's an issue, and guilty commenters get some feedback. (For all I know, I'm one: I've sometimes made additions or changes to very recently posted comments, although not to change what they're saying in any significant way.)

I believe LtU is using option 2, i.e. ordinary registered users can only edit their own comments until someone replies to them.

Really? Unless it stops you from actually posting the edit it appears that you can edit comments any time you feel like it and this is the way it has always been as far as I know. I'm not sure what the behaviour is for top-level posts. Personally, I'm in favor of allowing edits at all times. I'd prefer a history (option four), but in LtU's case I don't think it is all that critical (yet...). I say this because in practice I have rarely, if ever, noticed any malicious use of the ability to edit a post. Most significant edits are often marked a la [edit]. I do this as well, and the reason is I figured it was an unspoken convention of LtU. Usually when this is done the changes are appended or the "tag" mentions what changed and why. To sum up, the users of LtU tend to be conscientious about editing.

Unless it stops you from actually posting the edit it appears that you can edit comments any time you feel like it

You're right. I checked the code and it turns out that I've actually commented out the check for replies. This would have been in response to a discussion about the issue, although I can't find that right now.

and this is the way it has always been as far as I know.

The behavior I was remembering (edits allowed until replied to) is the default Drupal behavior in current versions, but I think we changed that quite early.

To sum up, the users of LtU tend to be conscientious about editing.

I agree, and that's the intended model. Again, I think any questionable edits could be replied to politely just so the original commenter knows that their edits are affecting people.

What if someone says something giving you a nice fight or flight reaction? Does the opinion reflect a desire for fights that resolve problems? Because fights would preserve all the words. Or might withdrawal be an acceptable solution? What's the right etiquette? I always thought going for the eyes was a poor social reaction that loses dignity. Also, if you know how to use words to cause serious injury, defending yourself can be morally questionable. And why would you start a bar fight in the establishment of a friend?

Slashdot is also well known for anonymous posts under pseudonyms. If it was only safe to make interesting remarks on LtU under a pseudonym, then that would be the way to go when otherwise you might fear loss of your job. Perhaps your boss Moe has no sense of humor since as CEO of the company he doesn't need to have any. One moment you think you're having a bit of fun to blow off steam, and the next you see someone has committed you to an indiscretion by recasting your remarks into a bit of propaganda against your employer.

I wouldn't feel honest posting under a pseudonym, but that would be my choice in the future to write anything funny that can whiplash, for fear of loss of employment. Maybe you would not work for someone who scares the wits out of you at times. But some of us might no longer have much choice in the matter. I'd like to leave that up to Ehud: is it wrong or sleazy or otherwise inappropriate for me to use a pseudonym? You'd have little trouble seeing it was me, and I wouldn't have to sweat bullets any more over close calls.

I don't like pseudonyms, and we noticed that people with pseudonyms often post less civil posts, but I was always outnumbered in this debate by people who climed there are good honest real world reasons for pseudonyms so we decided to let people decide for themselves about such things.

It seems to me that techincal discussions, of the sort LtU encourges, shouldn't (and wouldn't) offend emplyers. Humour is more dangerous, of course. So the real question is: How much humour do we really want (or need) here on LtU? ;-)

i think you may be missing the issue by focussing on pseudonyms. i believe (to the extent that i'm writing a system based on the idea) that what is important is "persistence of identity". it really doesn't matter if you're called "haskellpimpolicious", "shapr" or "shae erisson" - what does matter is that the name is permanent over time, so that it accumulates a reputation of its own.

or, more exactly, "real names" give you that (to a limited extent) from the start, which is significant for people who are only passing through, but, for long-term members, pseudonyms work just as well.

the same goes for edits - anyone who makes major revisions to posts for "unacceptable" reasons will soon be called out and acquire a reputation. or rather, they won't do it because they don't want the bad rep. the danger is new/temporary members who abuse the system and move on (or, if you are unlucky, a crazy who sticks around and abuses the system while ignoring peer pressure).

and, finally, i think lambda is a pretty "sticky" site with a low turnover - people tend to stay here for a long time - so these issues are probably not that pressing (in fact, my impression is that this place has plateaued somewhat - has traffic levelled off?)

I agree that persistence of identity is the main thing. I also think using your name is helpful.

No persistence of identity is totally unacceptable for a site like LtU, while pseudonyms are ok, even if I don't really like them for the reasons I already gave.

I thin, by the way, that almost everyone in this thread basically have the same feeling about these issues.

re pseudonyms: Like I said, you be the judge. If you feel you should use one, the go ahead.

[Edit: this post is entirely frivolous, and inappriate everywhere on LtU in my opinion. It's only useful function is to state that I'm not contributing to recent strange traffic under another name. I don't know what's causing the traffic, though I worry I might be encouraging it by being funny. So no more humor after this.]

This Dukenfield user is my only pseudonym, for folks who care. None other is me. I'm posting this here because I didn't want to disturb the serious Curry-Howard thread with a long joke, just because it was prompted by a funny three stooges remark. But I thought someone might enjoy it.

Coincidentally during a gym workout today, a new dialog ran through my mind as I mulled a silly piece on why many languages are low level; the following is just a portion of it. I rarely commit such things to written form as a waste of time. But the mention of Curly Howard and the three stooges made this too tempting. :-) I hope folks forgive me for this nonsense.

[Cur is a character I've had in the wings for a while. Cur works for optimistic Moe as tame dog lackey. Poe is Moe's self-aggrandizing, fork-tongued expert. And as usual, Vex is a loose cannon associate of Poe -- a dead medieval gravedigger who looks just like Betelgeuse. Ged is the ironically ineffective good guy. Everyone is wearing hard hats in a deep foundation dig for some building.]

Ged: (shakes head) They pay you to dig this deep?
Poe: (grins) Yeah, you should see my budget... What?
Ged: Horns are showing. (to Vex) Gravedigging skills help any?
Vex: (snorts) Course not. But I can keep the cool stuff I find.
Ged: (points) Guy with the bowl cut there. He pays the bills?
Poe: (softly) Yeah, he's a riot. (louder) Moe, meet my nemesis.
Moe: (sidles) Here take these oxygen masks; you'll need'em later.
Ged: (frowns) Gas leak?
Moe: (shouts) No, for the altitude! 3700 floors going up today.
Poe: (nods) Probably, chief.  Unless your idiot drops the ball.
Moe: (laughs) Never! Cur, where are you boy? We're running late.
Cur: (eyes scrunched up, closed) Hey, Moe! Help, I can't see!
Moe: (furious) Open your eyes, you moron.
Ged: (awed) Damn, where did you find these guys?
Poe: (shrugs) Reruns. Neither are coders--just play one on tv.
Vex: (runs off) Come on, Cur!  It's lunch, let's play fetch.
Ged: (points finger) No. No, I'm not getting you out of this.
Poe: (palm up) You flinch too easy. Just hang around a while.