If you don’t think pulling that one sentence out of that long post change the context, there is nothing left to be said. To me it was very blatant.
It was right below the post he was referencing.
Right
Below.
And he quoted just the part that made his point. I definitely saw his point.
BTW: We discussed. the Modnote won’t be elevated. (as in no warning will be issued)
The modnote stands.
The comment that this is bad moderation stands, too.
…but you are ignoring the context of the conversation.
I asked two questions. Bump didn’t answer the first question. Just ranted. None of it was either relevant to my question or on topic. I had asked for a cite. Bump chose not to provide a cite and responded with an off-topic rant instead. That’s fine with me. I ignored it.
But he answered the second question. And that part was the part I quoted.
As I understand it, the rule is like this: It’s okay to partially cite when the cite doesn’t distort the meaning of the poster, but you must quote the whole thing if the whole thing is what captures what the poster meant.
So for example, suppose that I wrote:
“When it comes to corruption and scandal, Trump has set records by a mile. He uttered 13,000 false statements, had scandals every week, called for an election to be rigged in his favor, and caused the death of half a million Americans. What about Obama in comparison? Obama did nothing in his presidency.”
Now, if someone were to only quote the last part, “Obama did nothing in his presidency,” that could run afoul of the rules, because it could have totally different meaning - it could make it sound as if I were saying Obama were a do-nothing lazy bum, when in fact I was speaking specifically in context of committing scandals.
But on the other hand, if I quote a long list of statistics, “Pearl Harbor was in 1941, Vietnam ended in 1978, the Gulf War was in 1991 and bin Laden was killed in 2011,” there’s nothing wrong with selectively snipping out one part only and saying, “errr, Velocity, I think you’ve got it wrong - Vietnam ended in 1975, not 1978.”
I don’t think he distorted the meaning, but since you understand it better than I do, could you go back to that post and quote the parts that would be necessary to make it an acceptable quote? That might help my understanding of what should have been done. Thanks.
…I’ve quoted your entire post just in case.
This was the question I originally put to Bump:
…cite? And I’m specifically talking about black and marginalised communities here. I’m well aware of politicization of vaccination and COVID mitigation measures by the Republican party/conservatives. But the cite I provided from the WP, and many others that I’ve read clearly indicate that this isn’t the main driver for these communities for why they aren’t getting a vaccine.
So what is it you want to do? Do we call it a day? Close up shop? You’ve given up on practically everything else. You’ve hit 70%, you’ve given it your best shot, time to move on?
And:
So I’m back to my question. What does this mean? Is it time to stop? Vaccine passports yes or no? Mandated vaccines yes or no? I get it: you think they are crazy and they are stupid. But thinking they are crazy and stupid is a suitable thing for a rant, but doesn’t solve the current public health crisis. So what next?
This was the response:
I’ve bolded the part that I quoted.
In my humble opinion, all the rest of the words in that post do not address either of my questions, and the only relevant part was the part that I quoted.
I invite @What_Exit or one of the other moderators to be specific and explain how I’ve been misleading here, or how the parts that I snipped added any additional context. Because to me none of it was relevant to the questions I asked.
I don’t see how I’ve distorted their message.
You quoted yourself as saying:
“So what do you want to do? Call it a day? Close up shop?”
Bump had a long post describing all the things that his area is doing to reach the unvaccinated. Then, you pulled out one line that said:
“My not giving a shit if they live or die at this point and not wanting to throw more resources at them is MY choice”
…as if that answered your question. HIs whole post answered your question – all the things they are doing in his area. I read his comment as “this effort is sufficient and we don’t need to do still more to try to convince them”, but your selective quoting made it seem like he said to stop doing anything. I think it distorted his meaning to the point of dishonesty.
FWIW, I’m all for a series of graduated “tripwires” for both mask mandates AND lockdowns, but in my state, our elected leaders have completely drunk the kool-aid, and have outlawed both for any public entity or location- schools, governments, city halls, etc…
So with that in mind, we’ve done pretty much everything I think reasonable at this point as far as carrots go, and we have no recourse to sticks, so I’m essentially done. I’m at the point where I’m sick and tired of conspiracy theories, crazy-assed appeals to liberty, the general “You can’t make me.” attitude of the right-wingers, and what seems to be indifference on the part of most minority groups.
So yes, I say let’s just keep the vaccination places open, but let’s stop trying to convince or cajole people at this point. It’s theirs to deal with.
fwi, the mods are discussing this.
The modnote has been rescinded on further discussion by the mods.
It is not felt that the context was removed or meaning changed by the mods collectively.
I will go on record to say I did not agree, but did agree that if they felt I should rescind it, I would.
Also, the mods are discussing the conflict between the wording of our rules re quoting other posters and the way the Discourse software encourages posters to quote.
There’s no question that the snip violated the letter of the rule. But for better or for worse, so do the vast majority of partial quotes made since we moved to this software. In practice, we have been moderating based on the spirit of the rule, not the letter.
The key question here was whether leaving out “here’s all this stuff we’ve already done” significantly modified the meaning of the final sentence. As What_Exit? said, the mods disagreed, but decided that with the split decision the ruling should go to the poster.