Whoa whoa whoa, I have never done that nor would ever do that, but I've been around message boards since Middle School. I've had that tactic used against me many times.

The internet is filled with trolls. A responsible admin will take proactive measures to counteract them, as these admins have done.

lol, Saul Alinsky 101: accuse others of what you're doing.

I understand people can naturally be suspicious, I'm of the innocent- til- proven- guilty- and- don't- make- laws- anticipating people- are- guilty camp.

Actually...doing that has never even occurred to me, but if somebody was going to do that couldn't they just write "typo" as the reason anyway? An honest person wouldn't do it (such as myself) and a dishonest person will lie about it....so it's seems silly to require a reason. Your reply did sound a bit accusatory. Whenever I feel like I'm required to do something that is a silly waste of time...yeah...I'll write gibberish...but I would never change my message to make "someone look bad" after they replied to it. So requiring a reason won't keep anybody honest...(or make anybody dishonest), either their honest already or they aren't.

I just put a ? or typo-anyway, it's another step that I question the relevance of. if it's not a pervasive problem, and since the Gulch has a self-correcting feature (points), why have it?

It's funny that you mention this, as I used this very thing today. In my impatience for it to show as having been edited, I just posted an oops, I meant to write.... I'm sure somebody saw the two Hee her's and wondered what I was smoking...

why do you automatically assume the worst? are you accusing me of something?
my reason is typo or auto spell incorrect or not clear. the tactic you're describing above seems small and petty, and those using such a tactic would lose points very quickly.

It keeps people honest (though now that I know people can just type gibberish as a reason, I'm not so sure). A common tactic on message board is to edit your original post AFTER someone has replied to make the person who replied look bad.

The level of difficulty isn't the issue. Just seems a bit silly. Wouldn't the reason be "typo" 90% of the time. Or is that just me? And why does a reason need to be given anyway? Maybe the "reason" for an edit should just default to "edit". (Who cares why?)

Why is giving a reason for editing a big deal? If you know why you are editing, which you should if you're editing, it should be easy enough to type out quickly.

My "reason" is usually "s"....