Changes Within the Quote Box

[Max_S]

Continuing the discussion from DC Court of Appeals rules against Trump Immunity, SCOTUS Makes a Different Decision:

@What_Exit

Moderating: Do not change poster’s quotes within the quote box. This is a pretty serious change. I will delete the quote.

I am not disputing this modnote. I would like some advice to avoid future rules violations.

Here is the rule:

@Ed_Zotti

Quote attributed to real SDMB user . Quotes must be accurate, whether displayed using the message board’s quote function or ordinary quotation marks. Normal editorial rules apply. You may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” or devices such as [snip]. You may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may not add editorial comments or edit a quote to change the substantive meaning, nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the [QUOTE] tags or quotation marks. This applies to all forums including the Pit.

Here is the original thread of conversation:

Joey_P and Stratocaster's Conversation (Click to show/hide)

@Joey_P

Maybe I’m blind, but I don’t see where it explicitly mentioned “for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments.”

But that doesn’t really matter.

If Trump shoots Biden on 5th ave, is that an official act? Is it covered as part of his core powers?

@Stratocaster

If he directs the military to do so, for example, then yes.

@Joey_P

And could he have done that, with immunity, when he was president?

@Stratocaster

He would have been safe from being charged (with a Federal crime, at least) until after his term. Prior to the recent cluster@#$& decision from SCOTUS, he’d have been fair game after he left office. No longer.

ETA: In case you were getting at something different, the newly created immunity is only for acts committed in office. If he shoots Joe now, he’s in the soup.

I originally quoted Joey_P like this:

And could [Trump] have [directed the military to shoot Biden on 5th ave], with immunity, when he was president?

The reason I bothered with explanatory brackets is because a few posts had been made and it wasn’t clear what “he” and “done that” referred to in isolation. “He” refers to Trump and “done that” refers to directing the military to shoot Biden on 5th ave. After re-reading the rule, I am thinking I should have left Joey_P’s original wording in, like this:

And could he [Trump] have done that [directed the military to shoot Biden on 5th ave], with immunity, when he was president?

Compare with the example from the rules,

her [the sister’s] friend

Contrast with another recent example where I changed the contents of a quote:

@Max_S

@Little_Nemo

And [you, Max_S,] appear to be concluding from that, that the Supreme Court never will rule on a substantive issue related to an amendment proposal.

Not quite.

In the original post, Little_Nemo had written “they”, referring to unspecified “People”. But in a subsequent post Little_Nemo clarified that I was one of the “people” being referred to, so I thought it was appropriate to respond to the original post as applied to me specifically.

In the future I can do something like this,

And they [including you, Max_S,] appear to be concluding […]

And could he [Trump] have done that [directed the military to shoot Biden on 5th ave], with immunity, when he was president?

However What_Exit’s mod note in the Trump immunity thread says the changes I made were serious. I doubt whether leaving the original text in before my explanatory brackets would make the change any less serious. So I think I don’t understand the rule correctly.

Again, I am not disputing the moderation here. I am seeking advice to avoid violating the rule going forward.

~Max

[pjd]

You appear to have followed the rules, imho.

[Joey_P]

@Max_S

and “done that” refers to directing the military to shoot Biden on 5th ave

I didn’t say that. That’s the entire problem.
I asked “And could he have done that with immunity, when he was president?”
Stratocaster answered"If he directs the military to do so, for example, then yes."

However, you then added that reply to the question and answered it as if it was my actual question. It was not.

While it might not have made a huge difference in that specific conversation, you changed the question. Perhaps I was asking if Trump himself could shoot Biden on 5th ave and be immune to prosecution.

A better way for you to have accomplished the same thing would have been to either quote my question and Stratocasters reply or to rewrite the question yourself and frame it whatever way you like.
You could have started off your post with “Upthread Stratocaster said Trump would be immune to prosecution if he ordered the military to kill Biden, but I don’t think that’s correct”

[Max_S]

@Joey_P

I asked “And could he have done that with immunity, when he was president?”
Stratocaster answered"If he directs the military to do so, for example, then yes."

You are misremembering the conversation. You asked if Trump shot Biden on 5th, was that a core power. Stratocaster answered if he directs the military to do so. Then you asked if he could have done “that” with immunity.

I quoted it all in the OP for reference.

~Max

[Joey_P]

@pjd

You appear to have followed the rules, imho.

He didn’t because he changed my question.

If I wrote “could he have killed Biden and been immune” and Max changed it to “could he [Trump] have killed biden and been immune” that’s fine as it’s just clarifying who ‘he’ is. However, he changed it to “could [Trump] have [directed the military to shoot Biden on 5th ave], with immunity, when he was president?” That’s a different question and isn’t what I asked.

[What_Exit]

This is simple, do not change quotes in the quote box. Anything more than snips and ellipses are not allowed.

If you remove a word in a sentence that changes the meaning, not allowed. And considered bad.

If you add words even in brackets, not allowed. Doesn’t matter if you think it didn’t change the meaning.

Don’t bold words unless you making it really clear after the quote box that you added the bolding.

Don’t do it because you think it was funny.

Don’t do the joke of “fixed that for you”.

You added words in square brackets, not allowed.

This is what I removed from your post:
And could [Trump] have [directed the military to shoot Biden on 5th ave], with immunity, when he was president?

Here is his post:

DC Court of Appeals rules against Trump Immunity, SCOTUS Makes a Different Decision

And could he have done that, with immunity, when he was president?

[Joey_P]

NM, What_Exit covered what I said.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@What_Exit

If you add words even in brackets, not allowed. Doesn’t matter if you think it didn’t change the meaning.
…
You added words in square brackets, not allowed.

From the rules, linked to in the OP:

@Ed_Zotti

You may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”)

I think it’s fair to say that what @Max_S did went beyond what the rules allow, but the offense was more than just “adding words in square brackets.”

[What_Exit]

I just check the TOS, you are correct, but as you said, @Max_S did more than that, he changed the meaning.

I might talk to Ed about that bracket part. That just makes our job a little harder. It was not the rule before the change.

[Max_S]

I’ll do my best to remember to leave out explanatory brackets entirely. Please get back to me if you learn otherwise though, since I’m used to using them as shown in OP.

~Max

[What_Exit]

What you did in that thread changed the meaning, that is not allowed.
Avoid that.

[Max_S]

@Max_S

@Joey_P

If Trump shoots Biden on 5th ave, is that an official act? Is it covered as part of his core powers?

@Stratocaster

If he directs the military to do so, for example, then yes.

@Joey_P

And could he have done that, with immunity, when he was president?

emphasis added

I think Joey_P is saying he intended for “that” to mean “shoot Biden on 5th Ave”, but I read it as meaning “directs the military to do so”, specifically “directs the military to shoot Biden on 5th Ave”. Furthermore Stratocaster’s subsequent reply (not quoted here) assumes the latter interpretation since his argument was that core powers grant immunity and directing the military was a core power while Trump shooting Biden himself wasn’t.

I can avoid explanatory brackets altogether if that is what is required. But I don’t think I can avoid unintentional misunderstandings such as this going forward.

~Max

[Joey_P]

@Max_S

I think Joey_P is saying he intended for “that” to mean “shoot Biden on 5th Ave”, but I read it as meaning “directs the military to do so”,

That, right there, is the problem. It’s not on you to decide what I mean. If something’s ambiguous, ask for clarification, don’t change the quote to reflect what you think it means.

[Max_S]

It wasn’t ambiguous to me. (ETA: @What_Exit: I was 100% sure I had the meaning right, until Joey_P said otherwise in this thread.) As I said, I can avoid explanatory brackets entirely, or there’s a chance for this kind of misunderstanding to happen again.

~Max

[What_Exit]

@Max_S

I can avoid explanatory brackets altogether if that is what is required. But I don’t think I can avoid unintentional misunderstandings such as this going forward.

If you are not 100% sure you are not changing the meaning, do not add the brackets. Do not change the meaning of quotes is the #1 rule concerning quotes. With do not misattribute being a close second.

TOS is here:
https://boards.straightdope.com/tos

[Joey_P]

@Max_S

It wasn’t ambiguous to me

Then why the need for explanatory brackets? It would have made more sense to quote the three posts, like you did here, instead.

[What_Exit]

I think what we’ve established is the brackets might be a bad idea.

[Max_S]

@Max_S

The reason I bothered with explanatory brackets is because a few posts had been made and it wasn’t clear what “he” and “done that” referred to in isolation.

The alternative is either I make more wordy posts (“assuming ‘that’ refers to …”) or lengthy fullquotes, probably more wordy posts most of the time. Not a big deal, just something I’ll remember going forward.

~Max

[Joey_P]

What you did in post #12 wasn’t wordy at all and makes it a lot easier for other posters to follow along.

[Max_S]

Without explanatory brackets in this situation I would have done something like this,

@Joey_P

You could have started off your post with “Upthread Stratocaster said Trump would be immune to prosecution if he ordered the military to kill Biden, but I don’t think that’s correct”

Meaning there would be no direct quotes at all, because that way I wouldn’t accidentally change the content of a quote and a summary is a lot shorter than quoting the whole exchange w/o explanatory brackets.

There’s still the possibility that I’m misinterpreting you and Stratocaster, and attributing things to you/whoever that you didn’t mean to say. That is not avoidable. But this way I don’t run afoul of the rule.

~Max