First, a thank you to kaylasdad99 for posting this. I had questioned, RickJay, the Moderator who issued the warning, in the thread. But he declined to answer. I was goint to start a thread here myself, but I wanted to give RickJay ample time to respond. Then I got caught up in work stuff.
I will just add to the defense of what I did that other’s have volunteered by saying, not only did I remove the posters name from the quote box, I highlighted the portion I changed, drawing attention to what I did. I can’t imagine that there is ANYONE who thought that I was trying to insinuate that he actually said those words.
This seems to be poor moderating on two levels. One, is that I do believe that I did nothing wrong. Two, even if this is, by the strictest super-technical interpretation of the rules, a violation, I think there exists enough gray area that a simple admonishment would have been better.
As has been pointed out, it is quite arguable that I did NOT violate the rules. But at the very least, I was trying to show an appreciation for the spirit of the rules by both omitting the name and highlighting the text I substituted.
So I ask RickJay and The Powers That Be, will you please revoke the Warning I was given.
Okay, here’s the way I understand this issue. Inside a quote box or quotation marks, the quotation cannot be altered. Except:
You may omit parts. You can designate omitted portions with ellipses or not. On other boards I’ve used [snip].
B. You may add an editorial [brackets] to clear up potential confusion of the originators words.
iii. One can emphasize a portion of a quoted phrase with italics and/or bolding.
All kosher so far?
So, what I’m thinking is we need to come up with an agreed on, officially acceptable, way to do ftfy type or other kinds comments that involve changing someone’s words. My thoughts:
Italicizing could set off a passage and wouldn’t involve quote boxing or quotation marks. As could center justifying.
B. Bolding could indicate added words not in the original.
iii. Striking through ( the [ del ] / [ / del ] tags ) would leave the replaced text visible.
4th. It’d be nice to somehow state who said the original comment. “Originally posted by [user name]” would be out, but maybe a simple “[user name] said:”
Maybe a bolded FTFY to further indicate editing took place.
[QUOTE=Doper 1]
You’re a moron who doesn’t have the brains to pour piss out of a boot! Die a slow, painful death!
[/QUOTE]
Doper 1 said: [del]You’re a moron who doesn’t have the brains to pour piss out of a boot! Die a slow, painful death![/del] You seem to be a bright fellow. I’d enjoy shooting the shit with you over a couple of beers.FTFY
Yes, I understand what Doper 1 said is beyond the pale, probably even in the Pit. I’m exaggerating. :o
It’s hard to believe that anyone can have a problem with “don’t change quotes in a box.” If I posted, and someone took my post and altered it later on, I’d be pretty pissed off about it even if my name were removed from the box. Just don’t change friggin’ quotes in the friggin’ box! Moaning about it strikes me as no different from teenagers being rebellious just to be annoying gits.
Nope. The rules you list above have always applied to text within quote boxes but nowhere else. Completely changing what someone wrote was totally acceptable if it was in quotation marks, italics, etc. Even in cases where it was a clear attempt to misrepresent someone’s original statement for whatever reason, board admins have always said that it wasn’t against the rules if it wasn’t within an official quote box.
This may or may not make any sense depending on how you look at it, but it was the rule and it was clearly and repeatedly communicated by the board staff on many occasions.
In this thread twickster said for the first time that I know of that text within quotation marks is subject to the same rules. Until we get clarification about that there’s not much point in trying to agree on a new format.
The issue that magellan01 was warned for has always been against the rules despite him bolding the changed text and removing the poster’s name from the quote box, although often in such cases and especially in The Pit this would only receive a mild mod note and not an official warning.
You know, I’d be fine if that were the clarification that the Mods wants to put forth. My only point is that I didn’t think I was doing anything wrong. In fact, I took steps to not violate what I thought the rule was. I seem to not be the only one who had some confusion as the the specifics. Even people who agree with me about close to zero have offered a defense based on their understanding being similar to mine. Given that, a Warning seems unjustified, especially with the tone with which it was issued. Seems like the right and easy thing to do is retract the Warning and issue some specific clarifications.
My take is that it was not against the rules as written, and the warning (especially as worded) should not have been given.
However, I also agree with all the arguments given in this thread that it should be against the rules. Even with no name given, it would be better that a quote box based on something posted on this board not be changed. The existence of the quote box itself gives the impression of a direct quote of someone on the board.
I’d say, clarify and/or change the rule, and rescind the warning.
I can get behind this, given that its use ranges from smarmy to snide to sulky. I’ve very rarely seen the “fixed that for you” used in another way. If someone wants to express a thought using this format, you can always say, “See, I would’ve said, ‘It’s only okay to call people poopyheads if they’re conservatives.’” Same sulky self-pity, but not a whisper of a hint that you’re putting words in someone else’s mouth.
NOTE: Actually said by CARMADY. Please be careful in attribution of quotes.
But smarmy, snide, and sulky are the point of the Pit, so I don’t see how that’s relevant. The thing about knowing you can trust quote boxes is at least a decent argument, although I’d argue that no one is confused about this subject when someone says “I fixed this for you,” as that obviously means they have changed the quote. But it being mean is not an argument against using it at all.
Sorry, we’ve been having some discussion about this in the mod loop, since there was some ambiguity about whether what you did constituted attributing a quote according to the rules. Not everyone has been on line so it took a little while. Apologies to all for the delay in responding.
Our consensus is that what you did does not constitute a violation of the rule on altering quotes. The warning is hereby rescinded. (Note that RickJay did not actually enter the warning in the automated system, so that has not appeared in your profile.)
To clarify:
-The rule applies to altering texts within the quote tags, which is attributed to another poster on the board (“Originally posted by”), in a way intended to change the meaning.
-You may quote just relevant parts of a post. If you take out parts within the post, normal editing rules apply. Deletions should be indicated by ellipses (…), [snip], or something similar; and any editorial additions should be in square brackets. We’ll be the judge of whether a change of meaning was intentional or not.
-To avoid misunderstandings, it’s better not to “fix” typos or omissions, unless they change the meaning (and in such cases use square brackets to indicate the change).
-Unattributed text within the quote tags is OK. However, this shouldn’t be abused as a way to insult another poster outside the Pit.
Within the letter of the law, yes. However, posters should use common sense (I know this is a problematic concept for some;)) and not play “rules lawyering” games with this. In general, don’t use quote tags to give the impression that a poster said something they did not. (magellan’s post did not do this.)