Are old edits still visible (to mods) and if so, will they ever be public?

I'm a member on sites with this feature and I like it. It's much harder to argue things were never said, especially with subtle edits, like a comma.

Yes. After you edit your own posts, you may notice the line indicating the post was edited is a link for you. You can follow that link to see a history of your own edits. For others, that line is not a link...unless that other person is a moderator.

The exception here is edits that happen quickly after a post is initially made. After you make a post, there is short time period (30 seconds? 45? 60?) during which you can edit your post without any indication or record of that edit having been made.

From what people have said in this thread, that's apparently an option vBulletin provides. I haven't run across even a handful of instances where someone edited his or her post here with the goal of revising history, so I don't see a need for public edit histories at this time. If you have examples though, I'm open to changing my mind.

It's good the mods can see that. Makes sense, too.

That I noticed. I also noticed (not sure if it's just a faulty observation) that if someone posts after you you can't quietly edit it. Is that accurate?

I can't say that I have, either. Though, it's good to know it's available. Should be enough to deter from such techniques.

It's off-topic, but until Reggie replied to my post I wasn't even aware that the moderator/staff forum was open to the council (despite it being suggested, being a member of the council doesn't make you a super-moderator).

So, it's also worth noting that the "moderator/council subforum" is not an official way of communicating with the council. And, until there's a "I never want to see this thread again in one of the bulk searches (newsub/newpost)" feature, such threads are likely to get buried and not seen, I'm afraid.

As Flandry has mentioned: "it was a forward-looking statement".

EDIT: I guess the main question here is, is the Council interested in helping out with the forum policies or not. If not, we can remove that statement, if you wish.

As for the official way of contacting the council, is it via emai (council@maemo.org) or the Ask the Council thread?

Indeed, I've no problem with that. I was just surprised to have my first visibility of it in a thread here.

Of course the Council's interested! This has nothing to do with the content, just my surprise that a) the moderator forum is open to us; b) it was discussed there and c) the first post said it had been carefully considered by the council (when the "council", as a body, weren't even aware of the thread AFAICT).

Anyway, this is constructive so I'm going to shut up now. I've a feeling I'm not making my point clear, and it's not relevant anyway.

council@maemo.org. I've now added that info to http://wiki.maemo.org/Community_Council#Get_in_contact

As a moderator/council member I should have thought to make sure the discussion was formally introduced into our email dialog. I just made an assumption (GeneralAntilles knew of the council access to the Moderator section, and it's only visible to those with access). Still no excuse, sorry.

And I can edit the "Ask the Council!" thread to clarify its purpose.

The funny thing is, I thought that believers in free speech were secretly in favor of it even in private forums, too. I thought that most people living in democracies wanted freedom all over the place, not just where it was legally required. I thought that even on Lost people were always voting on which way to go because they shared a certain point of view, and they wanted to hear each other out.

So now I understand that some people think that freedom of speech is just a far-out point of view that you adhere to only when you think the police will be called in when you don't. That's very interesting, and a surprise.

It's also interesting to me that a citizen can write an Open Letter to Nokia and send it to virtually any newspaper in the country and have a decent chance of its being published.

Except that same citizen is forbidden by these rules from publishing that same letter here. At least that's how I interpret them.

I won't speak for everyone, but I'm certainly in favor of absolutely free and protected speech everywhere. But I'm also a realist.

I know that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, if a lie, is not protected. I know I will suffer consequences.

I know that text in online forums doesn't fall under the same protections that speech in physical public venues does.

I know that completely free speech in an online forum tends to degrade the ability to hold meaningful discussion, and ironically undermines the exercise of free speech for the community.

I know that even in physical, public venues, I am being an abusive @$$ if I use my free speech to shout down another exercising his or hers.

I know that Justice Holmes was correct when he said my right to swing my arms stops just short of another person's nose.

I know that rank hyperbole, snide commentary and logical fallacies undermine rational speech.

I also know that the guidelines here don't forbid an open letter to Nokia, and I can't imagine where and how you derive such an extreme interpretation. But if you see an opportunity to improve the guidelines, your freely-spoken contribution is most certainly welcome.

EDIT: I also know that even the mildly restricted speech here is more than is allowed the citizens of some countries. Perspective is helpful.

Most are, I know I am. But when that speech halts or severely impedes the base function of the location you're doing it in, it's not protected, even in the most liberal of countries, even in public/common space. The examples of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, or yelling non-stop in a town hall meeting while others are trying to conduct town business come to mind. Neither are protected, since both cause the function of the forum to stop and/or could cause extreme harm.

The difference with the "letter to the editor" example you site is this: If you and 40 other people write such letters, the editor will probably print one or two such letters, and/or write an editorial summarizing what was said. There's a level of filtering that happens so that the entire paper isn't consumed for days on end with letters to the editor on the same subject. In this forum each person expects to "have the right" to write their own letter and see it printed, despite the fact that there are 50 others just like it, and cry "free speech" if their opinion isn't presentable.

Further, I challenge you to write a letter to the editor of a paper opposing a key stance they have and see if they print it at all. Or write one with the level of illiteracy and/or vulgarity seen here on a daily basis. Write a liberal-leaning letter to a conservative print magazine and see if they print your article. Would you expect Popular Science to print your manifesto on how tech publications are corrupting the minds of our youth? Would you expect Mercedes Monthly to print a critiquing article on the latest BMW line? Why then do you expect a forum for people developing and sharing information about their Nokia devices to be mandated to print/post/keep your opinion piece on how the device you bought doesn't fit with your expectations, or with your personal daily use? Especially when it's made clear (most often) that no research was done before writing the article, or before purchasing the device in question.

The issue isn't that we don't want people to speak about their device. The issue is that the negative Nokia-bashing group here has become so repetitive and so toxic that it's preventing others for using this forum for it's intended purpose: To bring together a community to support one another and enhance the enjoyment of the devices we commonly own. A constant mantra of hate against the devices, the manufacturer, and the perceived limitations or faults of either does nothing to promote an atmosphere where that can exist or thrive.

So to try to clean this up, the moderators are inventing a way to filter that content in some way, or to curb that behavior, so the normal flow of ideas can occur without this toxic stream infecting the pool as a whole. If you can't see that, and think it's just a bunch of jack-booted thugs trying to "repress your speech", you need to step back and re-evaluate things.

What do you think this forum exists for, if not to form a positive community around the devices we commonly own? How does a constant flow of hateful and negative opinions or "speech" help that? What other options are there to curb that flow of negativity, given posts from people (above and those in other thread areas) who have stated quite clearly they're here because they feel they were "raped" or injured by someone, and therefore have a right to take that out on a community of people that had nothing to do with it, and have no power to change the past, or prevent it from happening to others in the future?