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.
Originally posted by adramforallCertainly 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.
Once a post is made it shouldn't be able to be edited at all.
Nothing wrong with altering a post, especially to correct grammar and small content mis-alignments, in general.
-m.
Originally posted by PureRWandBThe highest wrecker has the cleanest bottom.
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]
That is their reward