I agree. I've seen it happen on another discussion forum(not a RAF one). Since threads are a collaborative, not an individual, effort, it does seem inappropriate, vis-a-vis the  other posters in a thread, to allow mass deletion of all one's posts.

That said, I do think it's quite safe to allow 24(or maybe even 36 hours) for those who don't necessarily always log on the same time each day). The way I see it, any harm caused with such a delay would be so minimal that it wouldn't matter. Since most members seem to want enough time to edit  re spelling mistakes but hardly any are really interested in reediting posts older than a few days, that seems logical. Given the extreme rarity of people wanting to edit really old posts, anyone could simply e-mail a Moderator and ask them to post in any correction to months-old posts, such a request likely only happening 2-3 times a year at most. What do you think?

Whoa...

I actually agree with GS here.  I do believe that after some period of time allowing full editing rights would be a mute point and probably more distructive than helpful.  For me there are two issues: 1)The window of opportunity to correct and clarify posts, and 2)The ability to update the first post in my journal with each year's lab tests and such.

As GS points out, a long time member with lots of posts could delete them causing significant damage to the continuity of the forum. BUT, as Tyler points out, little damage could occur if the window was fairly narrow.  Tyler's suggestion of 36 hours (the window of opportunity to correct and clarify posts) is still a bit short for my purposes - at least for my journal, as I depend on the reponses I get to let me know if the points in my post are unambiguous and clearly stated.  I'd like to see one week (7 calendar days).  This would provide time for responses and limit any malicious editing to a very short time frame.  A long time member could only delete or significantly alter posts withing the last 7 days.  Also, I would expect that we are backing things up on a regular basis (nightly?) and could easily restore any damage caused by malicious behaviour in this short term.  Please give this some thought and see if you don't agree that a week would be more than enough and actually create the illusion of unlimited editiing rights (as few would revisit a week old post), while at the same time protecting the integrity of the forum over the long term.

My second issue, updating annual information in the form of adding pdf attachements each year to my first journal post, might be addressed by my posting the updated version in the journal thread as normal and then asking a Global Moderator to copy and attache the file to the first entry as well.  It would take little time, and certainly meet my needs.  All that I want is all the lab tests and charts etc to be in one place so that people can easily compare them without having to do an Easter Egg Hunt to find them.

I personally do not expect or want to be given Global Moderator status just to be able to make these occasional updates myself.  Global Moderator should be reserved for someone fulfilling the responsibilities of that office and I have neither the time nor inclination to do so.

Please think about giving us a full week editing window.  This time frame would meet both the practical need to make useful changes as well as the important psychological illusion of unlimited edit time since the activity around most posts have run their course within that time period and the orignial poster would be very unlikely to revisit the post after that time.

My next lab tests are due in July.  At that time, if you are willing, we can try my other suggestion of having a Global Moderator copy the pdf files from the current chronological post in the thread and add them to my first journal post to see if that process is a viable option.

Lex