Who TF is "Simon" and ....

[13hm13]

Did you just get on the wrong bus? I removed the font size tags leaving the original text at the standard forum size. It was so big that even on a 27 screen reading it was hard.

Um .... toots .... then the OBVIOUS question is why does the Forum engine OFFER the larger font? If youz are so annoy'd ... then why offer?
Hmmm .... Oh ... Okay ... now me getz it ... so you can put your Mod  hat on Oh you clever little devil !! Job security 

[Monkeh]

Oh shut up.

[Ice-Tea]

Generally speaking, huge fonts are annoying. I would say the same about ghetto speak with gratuitous profanity too.

Quoted for truth.

[tggzzz]

Generally speaking, huge fonts are annoying. I would say the same about ghetto speak with gratuitous profanity too.

Quoted for truth.

I find each of those to be quite useful .... as a bozo filter indicating who can easily be ignored

It seems the OP complains he was kicked off diyaudio forum after 13 years, because he unnecessarily annoyed people there.
He's been on this forum for 8 years. I wonder if he will or won't beat his previous record?

[james_s]

Um .... toots .... then the OBVIOUS question is why does the Forum engine OFFER the larger font? If youz are so annoy'd ... then why offer?
Hmmm .... Oh ... Okay ... now me getz it ... so you can put your Mod  hat on Oh you clever little devil !! Job security 

Because like profanity, it has uses, but that doesn't mean you should use it just because it's there, at every possible opportunity. I don't know what you're talking about with job security, as far as I know forum moderator is not a paid job.

[RoGeorge]

13hm13, just to be clear, I am not on your side.  That post of mine was only because I misunderstood what happened.  I would have banned you without hesitation for how you wrote so far.  There are some rules on EEVblog, rules you didn't seem to know about.

Can somebody please ban 13hm13 and close the thread, please?

[fourfathom]

Can somebody please ban 13hm13 and close the thread, please?

Better yet, limit his posting privilege to just this thread.  That way I can check in if I need a laugh, and otherwise not be bothered.  But it doesn't seem that he's infected many other threads so maybe it's not an actual problem.

FWIW, I've been a moderator elsewhere, and I agree that changing a post is a touchy subject.  Deleting is OK, but a moderator-edit should at least include an in-post note that it has been edited (perhaps simple font-changes can go unremarked).  But that's extra work, and still problematic, so deleting / notifying the OP is probably better.  But the policy on all this is up to the forum management.  I'm quite happy with the way this place is being run.

[cgroen]

It iz 'xtremely interstin' ta notez just howz WEAKs and PUS*IFIED most o' y'all are ta minor issuez. Ignorin' da elefant in da roomz: da CONTENT o' dat mod-edited post ... and  instead concentratin' on da format and font.
And da Veritasium mystery remainz active and alive and UNRESOLVED ... despite four (4) friggin' pages devoted to da topic.
Pathetic EEVBlog ...  PUH-THET-IK!

I think you need to find the door where it says "EXIT" very soon ?

[Simon]

Can somebody please ban 13hm13 and close the thread, please?

Better yet, limit his posting privilege to just this thread.  That way I can check in if I need a laugh, and otherwise not be bothered.  But it doesn't seem that he's infected many other threads so maybe it's not an actual problem.

FWIW, I've been a moderator elsewhere, and I agree that changing a post is a touchy subject.  Deleting is OK, but a moderator-edit should at least include an in-post note that it has been edited (perhaps simple font-changes can go unremarked).  But that's extra work, and still problematic, so deleting / notifying the OP is probably better.  But the policy on all this is up to the forum management.  I'm quite happy with the way this place is being run.

Ultimately whatever you do this sort will still complain.

[Simon]

The fact that you can change the font size or the color, doesn't mean you should. Why is this topic not closed yet?

Why pass up on the opportunity to let the trouble maker - oh wait - he identifies as a pigdog (avatar text translation), so as I was saying just let the pigdog make an utter fool of himself, seems to entertain a few and ultimately is one hec of an insurance policy when the masses demand that he is kicked out. I'd only ban him if it there was really no other option to protect the forum. I would not want it to look like I banned him out of revenge.

[Neilm]

The only big font we want here is the big font of knowledge.

[John B]

Simon, editing the content of somebody else's post is somewhere between wrong and illegal.

You can always delete the post entirely, or ban the user, but do not edit the content.  I live in a former dictatorship country, and I mean it when I say it was wrong what you just did.  The fact that is technically possible to edit, doesn't mean you should do that.  I did forum moderation for many years, and seen a lot of crap, from spam to personal insults.

Anyway, editing is both wrong and time consuming, it is like you would lie about what somebody else said.  Just delete the entire post and move on.  Nobody will give you back that time spent editing.

I tend to agree. Moderators editing comments, no matter how small, changes the forum into an editorial, and the authorship of a comment can never be truly trusted. I've seen forums devolve into censorious echo chambers and moderators editing comments was a key part of that (comments could easily be edited with no "edited by:" notes attached to posts)

Sure you can argue it's not the same extent, but it doesn't negate my first statement. It's just a bridge you can't uncross.

Any open forum has to deal with spamming, low quality or trolling posts. I've always thought a better option was either the ability to hide posts, or in the worst case every thread has a parallel "naughty bin" thread where bad faith or trolling posts could be placed unedited.

Sure, it also has the ability to be misused or applied with bias, but it isn't censorship or editorialising if you can choose to read the original unedited posts, no matter how garbage they might be.

[james_s]

Changing the font size to something reasonable isn't censorship. The text is still there unchanged.

[magic]

I tend to agree. Moderators editing comments, no matter how small, changes the forum into an editorial, and the authorship of a comment can never be truly trusted. I've seen forums devolve into censorious echo chambers and moderators editing comments was a key part of that (comments could easily be edited with no "edited by:" notes attached to posts)

1. This ain't plebbit so here it does show "edited by Simon".
2. Nothing was edited save for an annoying use of formatting.
3. One could argue that the moderator extended courtesy to the OP by not simply nuking the offending comment and now a bunch of people are whining.
4. This stupid thread will go on for 10 pages

[Bud]

Sure, it also has the ability to be misused or applied with bias, but it isn't censorship or editorialising if you can choose to read the original unedited posts, no matter how garbage they might be.

You did not see the original post, did you. It occupied 80% of my 24 inch monitor's screen space with its imbecilic 120 points font size. If i were Simon i would not only banned the offender for life but would also travel across the water and beat the shit out of him with a baseball bat.

[John B]

Changing the font size to something reasonable isn't censorship. The text is still there unchanged.

I tend to agree. Moderators editing comments, no matter how small, changes the forum into an editorial, and the authorship of a comment can never be truly trusted. I've seen forums devolve into censorious echo chambers and moderators editing comments was a key part of that (comments could easily be edited with no "edited by:" notes attached to posts)

1. This ain't plebbit so here it does show "edited by Simon".
2. Nothing was edited save for an annoying use of formatting.
3. One could argue that the moderator extended courtesy to the OP by not simply nuking the offending comment and now a bunch of people are whining.
4. This stupid thread will go on for 10 pages

In regards to "it was just formatting", it becomes an issue of trust, especially the next time one of these rant threads pops up and somebody claims that a moderator has essentially impersonated them and wrote some words that were not their own. While a moderator can deny they wrote particular words, they can't claim editing is something they wouldn't do.

This shouldn't be taken as a personal judgement on any particular moderator, it protects them as much as anyone else.

These aren't hypotheticals, these are all issues I've seen before.

[Simon]

Posts have always been edited where necessary, nothing new here just the user wanting to make a fuss knowing very well that he was making trouble. At the end of the day if you don't trust the site management, leave the site, pity the OP has not figured that out.

[EEVblog]

Simon, editing the content of somebody else's post is somewhere between wrong and illegal.

You can always delete the post entirely, or ban the user, but do not edit the content.  I live in a former dictatorship country, and I mean it when I say it was wrong what you just did.  The fact that is technically possible to edit, doesn't mean you should do that.  I did forum moderation for many years, and seen a lot of crap, from spam to personal insults.

Anyway, editing is both wrong and time consuming, it is like you would lie about what somebody else said.  Just delete the entire post and move on.  Nobody will give you back that time spent editing.

Did you just get on the wrong bus? I removed the font size tags leaving the original text at the standard forum size. It was so big that even on a 27 screen reading it was hard.

Post content will never be edited at word level. If a section of the post is acceptable and another section objectionable and otherwise not relevant it may be removed entirely, else the post is indeed deleted entirely.

Yes, we don't edit posts unless it's to remove a questionable link, or remove some personal identifying information that been posted, or some other extreme.

[EEVblog]

In regards to "it was just formatting", it becomes an issue of trust, especially the next time one of these rant threads pops up and somebody claims that a moderator has essentially impersonated them and wrote some words that were not their own. While a moderator can deny they wrote particular words, they can't claim editing is something they wouldn't do.
This shouldn't be taken as a personal judgement on any particular moderator, it protects them as much as anyone else.
These aren't hypotheticals, these are all issues I've seen before.

We can't edit a post without the system showing this publicly to everyone. Ofcourse it doesn't show what was changed, but it shows that it was changed.

[rsjsouza]

Holy crap. So much spilled pixel ink about a couple of posts of a dude/dudette with an axe to grind on a public forum of voluntary participation. And bringing accusations of censorship, wokeism and the sorts... We should gather the high grey beards committee of EEVelders and commit a Bill of Rights on this forum.

Man, it has been hard to find safe havens from these things these days... EEVblog is one of these places most of the times.

If my opinion counts for anything, I would simply lock this as it will become a s**tstorm.

[Halcyon]

Simon, editing the content of somebody else's post is somewhere between wrong and illegal.

Everything is wrong about that sentence.