What is the Board ruling going to be on paraphrasing or lampooning in Quote Marks as opposed to the Quote Tags?
Jim
We’ve talked about this in the past a few times. The consensus was that summarizing/paraphrasing another person’s argument within quotation marks is OK. So, in an argument about universal health care, I can say:
I am clearly summarizing her argument, and will not run afoul of the misquoting rule. This is not to say that quotation marks are now a sanctuary for misquoters. If you phrase a statement such that you are clearly quoting someone directly, then the same rules apply with quotation marks as with quote tags. For example, if I say:
I have indicated that I am quoting Veb, and the words in the quotation marks had better be her exact words, not a paraphrase.
The goal is to allow people rhetorical lattitude without sowing confusion or misinformation.
All right, I’m gonna do it. I’m going to unstick all the old stickies and let them sink.
I think we could really use someone with a bagpipe playing “Amazing Grace” right now.
More edits:
Changed title of “Pitting other posters” section to “Include links when Pitting other posters”, per JustAnotherGeek’s suggestion.
Added the sentence “Similarly, if we feel your primary reason for being here is to complain about the board and/or the moderators, you may be invited to go find another board that is more to your liking.” to the end of the “No Trolling” section.
I playing the one from Braveheart, I don’t have the one from Star Trek. 
Jim {I always like an excuse to listen to that}
I have to say, the “hypothetically” there is blowing my little mind. Because if you didn’t really write it, then you’re breaking the new board rules by posting that you did write it. But if you did really say it (and you did, I can see it right up there), what’s hypothetical about it?
Blowing my little mind.
Daniel
It was just an extra bit of information for the convenience of the casual reader, since quotes usually refer to previous posts. When it comes to quoting, being as specific as possible about what’s in the quote tags is always a good thing.
Note that had I made up hypothetical words for TVeblen as part of that example, I would not have put them in attributed quote tags. I don’t believe the disclaimer “hypothetically” would be sufficient to compensate for the fact that her name would be attached to words she didn’t write. This is less of a concern when I’m quoting myself, obviously. 
Hypotheticals about hypotheticals? If I understood this, my head would explode.
Daniel
OK, there don’t seem to be any more urgent complaints about the wording of the rules sticky, so I’m going to unstick this. Discussion, suggestions and complaints about the rules are of course still welcome, but can take place in their own new threads.
You forgot - Don’t call the moderators cunts.
Does the colloquial ‘FOAD’ or ‘Fuck Off And Die’ count as ‘wishing death’?
In my neck of the woods it’s a garden variety insult, not meant to be taken as a literal wish of death. Just curious what it is here.
I think it was Greathouse who was recently suspended for saying either FOAD or its first cousin, ESAD (“Eat Shit And Die”). The mod referred to it as “wishing death on another member.”
Link to Greathouse’s suspension.
Telling someone to fuck off and die does violate the letter of the “no wishing death” rule, as would telling someone to “drop dead”, another commonly used expression which is usually not intended literally. If we’re going to have a “no wishing death” rule, it’s hard to see how to make exceptions for colloquial expressions which can be enforced consistently.
That said, it’s the sort of thing we’ll often let slide, unless you appear to be intentionally trying to push the boundaries or are just generally acting like a dick.
I thought it was funny. I think your reaction is even more funny.
I am also curious about the standards for line-crossing slurs. I think that any attacks based on race, gender, or sexual orientation (and possibly religion) should be considered potentially line-crossing, and otherwise judged individually. I don’t think the rules should imply that if, say, Fred Phelps showed up to share his views, he wouldn’t be in danger of bannination because he’s not a member of the KKK.
There’s a difference between being offensive and being over-the-top hateful. As much as possible, we want to avoid being in the position of dictating what is and isn’t offensive. Instead, we leave such cases for you guys to handle. It’s what the Pit is for, really – if someone says something you find offensive, call them on it. Even if they don’t see the light, you may educate some innocent bystanders who wouldn’t have otherwise seen things from your perspective.
Sure. The question is why is race singled out for protection in the rules, then? I don’t object, as such, but I am curious what the reasoning is.
I see what you’re saying. The rule does actually cover anything we deem to be hate speech, not just racial hate speech. If someone showed up ranting about how women/men are inferior animals and should be wiped out, we’d boot 'em (although we may let you guys bat them around a little first). The reason the text of the hate speech rule focuses on race is simple pragmatism: as far as I know, most if not all of the confusion and controversy surrounding the rule has centered on its application to racial remarks.
Really, our only goal with the rule text here is to make new posters aware that there are still some limits on acceptable speech even in the Pit, but that such decisions will have to be made on a case-by-case basis instead of simply having a list of taboo words. We’re certainly open to suggestions on rewriting the text to better clarify this.
Thanks much for your prompt & clear replies. I understand now. Absolutely, I agree that case-by-case is the only way. As for rewording, here is how it reads now, just so everyone doesn’t have to flip around:
I would simply change the final appearance of the word ‘racist’ to ‘hateful’ or ‘offensive’ or something more inclusive, to avoid confusion.
Oh, and I think advocating genocide should be noted as an exception to the ‘wishing death on a general group is okay’ rule. It seems obvious to me, but given the joy in rules lawyering Dopers seem to take, it might be prudent.
This is a good suggestion. I’ve edited the rules to incorporate it.
As for the genocide thing, while it may not be covered under the “no wishing death on other posters”, it is covered by the hate speech rule, the trolling rule, the “don’t be a jerk” rule, and the unspoken “don’t be a freako psychopath, either” rule.