Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
@barlop: It's obvious that you're very upset with me; beyond using the phrase "DOS prompt" (for which the timing of your "beyond pathetic" comment was within approximately 1 day following the "DOS prompt" downvote/hostile-comments fiasco, as I recall, so this seems a likely suspect to me) I'm at a loss as to what may have caused this. If you want a moderator's decision changed, take it up with them.
@barlop: I don't agree with you, and you're going around in circles -- I've been very clear in my position that unconstructive comments are not useful, and when they involve negative or hostile wording (as yours did) that their removal is appropriate. (This discussion is no longer interesting, please end it.)
@barlop: The inclusion of the words "beyond pathetic" does not add any value, borders on hostile, and also detracts from the quality of the content on this web site -- it was, therefore, not constructive (and the fact that you quoted only "beyond pathetic" from your comment enhances this point). The moderators obviously make their own decisions on whether to delete offensive content, and whoever deleted your comment obviously decided that it was not suitable (and I agree with result of that decision).
@barlop: I don't mind constructive criticism (and I usually vote for such comments because I feel that they're worthwhile contributions), but if you think that it's somehow useful to place negative labels like "beyond pathetic" on answers (especially those that were obviously written with helpful intentions), then I'd wager a guess that you've misunderstood the nature of this online community -- to help others.
+1 because I'm interested in what this question asks for. I'm not favourable to the idea of limiting edits though, because I think that editing is an important feature that gives this community more depth by allowing everyone to participate.
I agree (+1) because an "ignore" option is an anti-social feature that leads to invisible divisions in the the community that won't make sense to those who don't know who's ignoring whom in addition to causing the formation of cliques. The "plonk" feature in usenet newsgroups (NNTP) has lead to this very problem, and has actually made it worse in my opinion because the trouble-makers just return with a different identity (to take a page out of a spammer's handbook). One of the functions of a moderator is obviously to quell such disorder, and for a few instances I know of it was handled well.
+1 because I feel the same way that Gareth does. I used to edit a lot, but I cut back severely because people complained and a few even seemed to be "pissed off" about it (someone even told me that it damages their score and not to edit their Answers again -- I'm not going to keep a list!). This was discouraging because I truly thought I was contributing positively to the quality of Questions and Answers. Although I don't consider this as "buckling under peer pressure," I do think that if minor and major edits are upsetting people that my time and effort is better spent on other things.
I'm curious as to the reason why someone downvoted this question as it seems to be a reasonable question which was also written in a detailed, well thought-out, and neutral manner.
