Sometimes in the occasionally heated environment of opinion exchange there arise misunderstandings, and even misrepresentations, as to what may have been said by posters elsewhere in the Forum.

Certain forum software may be able to reduce scope for such miscommunication to occur.

A coloured background to intra-Forum quotes was first suggested in Fractelle's Technical Support thread "THE 'What we have here is a failure to communicate' POLL", here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2063#42887 . It was endorsed by her in the immediately following post.

One of the features associated with such background-shaded quotes was not expressly mentioned in that thread: that feature being that a reference to the post from which the quote is taken (by the selection of text and clicking on the 'quote' button in fora so equipped) is embedded in the quote as it appears in the post using it. The significance of this feature is that it removes all possibility of accidental or deliberate misquotation. If an intra-forum quote is colour backgrounded, it is authentic.

Likewise, if a post has been taken down by a moderator, it is not present and able to be quoted from in this authenticated manner. Any residual backgrounded quote from a post no longer up on the forum is likewise evidence that at the time that quote was made, the original quote WAS there to be seen. The possibilities for misunderstandings or misrepresentation are minimized.

A closely related forum feature also mentioned in rstuart's earlier TS thread was that of the site software providing for 'hard' post numbering within threads, such that a witness will be left as to the removal of posts other than those of orphan responses to content no longer viewable.

An example of such forum features in operation can be seen on the Ubuntu Linux Forums, here: http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=48 . Click long threads to see.

As a believer that courteous discussion enhances the quality of debate, I see such forum features as being assistive to achieving such outcome.

Costs involved?

What do users think?

I agree totally. We need this feature desperately here, in order to prevent people manually typing inaccurate and/or altered quotes in an effort to pretend that someone said something they did not.

Id also like to see a Gender Box.
For many months I responded to CJ Morgan thinking CJ was a woman.
Having (somewhere) made a decision that he was female, I saw nothing in his writing to suggest he was a man.

I'd suggest that a better policy would be to make posts indelible. I've never felt the need to deelete a post, although my recent experience on other threads would indicate that some of the less honest among us might see it as desirable.

Making the posts indelible would also save the moderators some work and if those who are prone to tell lies are prevented from posting them because they're fearful of being caught out, so much the better.

SallyG:"We need this feature desperately here"

What we really need is an emd to your dishonesty. Making the posts indelible would achieve that.

Gibo: << For many months I responded to CJ Morgan thinking CJ was a woman.
Having (somewhere) made a decision that he was female, I saw nothing in his writing to suggest he was a man. >>

Truly weird. One wonders why Gibo needs to know the gender of OLO correspondents in the first place, and also how he might address men and women differently in a forum such as this.

I'm quite pleased that my writing is apparently gender-neutral - it's supposed to be.

Besides which, Gibo may be shocked to learn that people aren't always honest about their personal details in online forums. Imagine his sheer confusion if someone was to tick the wrong gender box deliberately. Sweet heaven forfend!

And what about trannies? We have at least one person of that disposition posting occasionally to OLO.

When I first submitted this topic GrahamY required that I rework it somewhat. Graham advised, in his initial rejection email requesting the reworking, that OLO is looking at a rebuild sometime.

So despite what some may feel to be a lack of feedback or interest in suggestions in various technical support threads in recent months, OLO is in fact interested in some of the ideas presented.

Now is the time, for those who are interested in how this forum works, and how it can perhaps better be made to work, to put their ideas, and/or their opinions as to how they see the ideas and suggestions of others, working out in practise.

Regarding Antiseptic's suggestion of indelibility of posts, it may be that OLO could not embrace that feature for reasons related to the avoidance of publication of actionable material. For OLO to be seen to do nothing in circumstances where a poster may be libelling someone may expose it to liability for damages in any subsequent legal action. Indelibility may also, in effect, make the enforcement of any Forum rules in relation to posting a nullity.

The suggestion that 'hard' (ie. unalterable) post numbering within a thread be adopted is perhaps a compromise between the two competing requirements of all posters being 'on record', and the maintaining of effective editorial control over the Forum. The hard numbered blank where a post once was would alert viewers to the fact something had had to be removed.

Which brings us to the issue, raised by inference in Antiseptic's post, of the prospect of deletion of a post by a USER, as distinct from that of a deletion by a Forum moderator. I am of the understanding that there has never been any way that a user could ever, unilaterally, have deleted a post in this Forum. Can anyone supply a definitive answer to this question?

CJM and Gibo,

A gender box may be for nothing more than enabling the correct use of the possessive case. Having to use 'he/she' or 's/he' I find cluncky. User optional?