There is a little bug:

Two users: toto who is not moderator and tata who is also moderator

Toto post a message and edit his message and we can see:
Posted: 25 Mar 2005 23:36 ° Edited by: toto
Tata can also edit toto's message and Tata don't want toto to edith the post again. Sowe can see!
Posted: 25 Mar 2005 23:36 ° Edited by: moderator

All is right.

Now the bug:
Tata post a message and edit his message because he wants to add something. But tata is moderator and we can never see that kind of thing:
Posted: 25 Mar 2005 23:36 ° Edited by: Tata

When editing the message, try to check the box marked "Edit", when you check it as moderator, script adds this info to database.

I agree with you but we will have
Posted: 25 Mar 2005 23:36 ° Edited by: moderator
For tata's message, If tata edit his message, it will be interesting to have:
Posted: 25 Mar 2005 23:36 ° Edited by: tata

But it is not possible because tata is moderator.

Ah, I understood finally :-) Do you mean - if moderator's message is edited by moderator himself, we need to put his NAME, not TITLE?

Yes :)
In fact:
- if the box marked "Edit" checked, then you can write "moderator"
- if if the box marked "Edit" not checked, then we must the name.

Ok, we'll fix it in the next subrelease. thanks.

Only a thought:

1. When the box for closing the post is checked by the Mod/Admin - to be written "Moderator (Administrator)".
2. When the box for closing the post is not checked, but Mod/Admin edits other's post - to be written "Moderator (Administrator)", too.
3. When Mod/Admin edits his own post - to be written his name.

There is no matter, I think, who of the Mods (or the Admin) has edited a post of another user. Else the user will ask "Why Toto edited my post and not Moto" :) When there is written Mod or Admin - all is clear, nevermind if the post is closed or not.

Am I right? Or it's complicated to be written?...

Ivan
You are right.

agree with Ivan too (If I understood well his post)

I went closer to this implementation and discovered, that something conflicts here.

I'll try to explain how our script works.

So, in database, we have post_status field which means the following:

*) 0 - message is untouched by anyone.
*) 1 - message is edited BY AUTHOR. So, if it is allowed, author can edit this message again as he may edit any message marked with status 0 or 1. If status is 1, when displaying a message, scripts reports that it was edited by author and puts near editing bar his name automatically. NOTICE: this name is not saved in any field! It is generated on the fly. That's why we have no EXACT moderator's name here.
*) 2 - message is edited BY ADMIN. By rules, it is disallowed to edit this message by user.
*) 3 - message is edited BY MODERATOR. By rules, it is disallowed to edit this message by user.

So, according to previous requests, I've made so when Admin or Mod do not touch "EDIT" box, the status of the message is not changed at all. So, if it was 0, it will be 0, if it was 1 - it will be 1. And users are able to edit their messages this time. When checkbox is marked, status is changed to 2 or 3, and users are not able to edit such kind of messages by rule.

Now, I am gonna add the following:

- If Admin or Mod edits NOT his message, and marks EDIT box, status will be 2 or 3. But if he edits his own message, status will be always 1. With this, script will display Admin's or Moderator's name.

- If Admin or Mod edits NOT his message, but doesn't mark EDIT box, status will be 1, if this is his own message, or 0 - if it is other's message.

So, with this, we are keeping previous request, when Admin is able to edit someone's message hiding it to public; at the same time, when editing his own posts, Admin can not hide that fact.

Isn't it good? :-)

I think, this is the only possible logic in this case. Let me know guys what do you think.

Also, there could be a hidden possibility even... if Admin or Mod edits his own message, but checks the EDIT box, status of the message is changed to 0 like it was not edited at all. Let me know what do you think ASAP :-)

Why, Team, the Administrator/Moderator would hide that he edited his own message? That's not a shame :) The reversed function of the "Edit" box when Administrator/Moderator edits his own message could confuse him in a nervous moment...

I see the things simpler.

How it was

0 - Untouched message - no text "Edited by..."
1 - Someone has edited his own message - text "Edited by (his own name)"
2 - Administrator has edited other's message - text "Edited by Administrator"
3 - Moderator has edited other's message - text "Edited by Moderator"

Until here all was fine with one exception - the Administrator and the Moderator had always closed the messages for further editing.

How to be

You already added the box "Edit".

And from now on to become:

- If the Administrator/Moderator edits other's message and does not check the box - the message is opened for further editing by the user, and remains 0 or 1, as it was before - without "Edited by..." or with "Edited by (user's name)".

- If the Administrator/Moderator edits other's message and checks the box - the message is closed for further editing by the user, and becomes respectively 2 or 3 - with the text "Edited by Administrator (Moderator)".

- If the Administrator/Moderator edits his own message - the message always becomes 1 - but with the the Administrator's/Moderator's user name. (This way the other people will see that the message is edited and will read it again. There might be something new and interesting in it.)

Of course, the Administrator/Moderator could lock his own messages, too, for editing, but there is no sense to do that :)


Explanation

Two possible reasons exist for the Administrator/Moderator to edit other's message:
1) There are grammatical errors, errors in links, wrong letters etc. Then he will leave the message opened - 0 or 1.
2) The matter of the message is insulting, ugly, contains curses etc. Then he will close the message - 2 or 3 - with "Edited by Administrator/Moderator".

That's all.

- If Admin or Mod edits NOT his message, and marks EDIT box, status will be 2 or 3. But if he edits his own message, status will be always 1. With this, script will display Admin's or Moderator's name.
Right, That's why I ask for at the beginning.


- If Admin or Mod edits NOT his message, but doesn't mark EDIT box, status will be 1, if this is his own message, or 0 - if it is other's message.
Correct also if we read what Ivan wrote just above.


Also, there could be a hidden possibility even... if Admin or Mod edits his own message, but checks the EDIT box, status of the message is changed to 0 like it was not edited at all. Let me know what do you think ASAP :-)
I don't agree, It is some kind of ... I don't find the word :) ...
Why would admin or mod be hidden ?

I wrote almost the same as Team, but all at one place and, at least I imagine so, slightly more clearly arranged :)

But no, when the Administrator/Moderator edits and closes other's message - state 2 or 3 - it must be written Edited by Administrator (or Moderator)". Not his name but his title.

I, too, do not see why if Administrator/Moderator has edited his own messages, he has to hide this fact :) And I have written this respectively :)

Ok then. I could draw a conclusion that it was done in RC3. So, here will be the final explanation (meaning Admin, I also mean Moderator):

* Admin edits another's message, and marks "Edit" box - status will be 2 or 3 (not allowed to edit by user anymore). "Admin" or "Moderator" title is showed as "who edited" info.

* Admin edits another's message, and doesn't mark "Edit" box - status will be 0 (allowed to edit by user). Nothing is showed as "who edited" info as the message was not edited at all.

* Admin edits his own message - status will be always 1, not depending on checking "Edit" box this time (allowed to edit + Admin's or Moderator's name is showed as "who edited" info).

Ok?