I’m okay with it and it would fix this issue for that one post but I’m still against the idea of locking edits.
Take this example -
Someone creates an OSR game and creates a thread around it. In the thread they link to a document in the OP. They are TL2. Discussion happens around the game in the thread and users point out a few typos and typographical errors.
About a month and a half later the poster releases v2 of the game with edits and fixes based on received feedback and wants to update the OP with the latest version but is unable.
Are you arguing that what you would prefer is that because the edits took into account what other users posted in the thread the original poster should post a reply in their thread with the v2 saying “Hey everyone, I updated the document - here is version 2” rather than doing that and updating the original post?
That seems like terrible design to me.
- As the discussion continues, many users will miss version 2 by accidentally skipping over the post.
- People new to the thread will download version 1 (because it’s in the first post, why wouldn’t they?) and could post replies to the thread saying “Hey, I found this typo” that was already fixed in version 2 - this clutters up discussion because not everyone is up-to-date and using the latest version of the product.
- This encourages the original poster to post a new thread with version 2, but it’s not a major revision release, so the discussion around it is no longer localized to one thread, cluttering the forum.
- If #3 happens, people subscribed to the original thread may miss the new thread and not get the updated version 2 at all!
Updates to top level posts is critical functionality on a forum to ensure that users can find updated, localized information. Piecemealing it throughout an entire thread of 100+ posts makes it nearly impossible for all but the most attentive users to gather it all.