I was just reading through a thread from a couple weeks ago, and I came across this post where Miller told Der Trihs not to change the contents of a quote box:
… Crikey, what a pain it was to reconstruct that post so all the nested quotes showed up.
Anyway, I have, on occasion, quoted text from different paragraphs of the same post by inserting the tag <snip> in a line between the two paragraphs. Is that actually not allowed? At one time I just used ellipses to indicate omitted text, but it doesn’t feel proper to fuse different paragraphs together that way. But if <snip> isn’t enough of a standard, I have no problem changing to avoid running afoul of the “no changing the contents of a quote box” rule. (I suppose one alternative would be to just place text from different paragraphs in different quote boxes.)
Or is it just the wayDer Trihs used the <snip> convention to both remove all of the OP’s wall-o’-text and call it “lunacy” that was the problem?
Falsely attributing a quote to another user, or modifying another’s post in order to cast him/her in a bad light, even if meant in jest, is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges.
This does not apply to parodies to which no name is attached.
Text inside
[QUOTE]
tags is sacrosanct. Normal editorial rules apply: that is, you may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” and 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 so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the
Here’s the rule. Note the bolded part.
Using ellipses or <snip> is fine. Replacing text with “some lunacy” is not.
Thanks for the clarification. I hoped that was the case, but I wasn’t sure. I’d forgotten about the “some blather” part being spelled out in the agreement.
But another question remains to be clarified in this particular case: Is it okay to snip the entire text of a quote? Aside from the “lunacy” remark, are we allowed to make a quote where the entire text is snipped and nothing is left?
Like that?
ETA: And then, there was this:
Congratulations! You are now a certifiable SDMB technical guru. From now on, people will be badgering you with their quote questions!
So - the rule being what it is - and being as clear as it is - why was ‘no warning issued’ for a poster that has been here more than long enough to know better?
Miller can answer for himself, of course, but I would guess that since the topic was already in The BBQ Pit and the infraction is not one in which that poster engages regularly, a Mod Note to back off would appear to be sufficient to redirect the poster to better behavior.
It is not the practice of any Mod, here, to issue an official Warning for every instance of every violation of every rule.
But this happens to be a ‘bright line’ rule - one in which posters have been warned for accidents - and this one was clearly no accident (again, by a well established poster).
WHile I can appreciate leniancy - there seems to be times, and this being one of them, where its too well established to be a ‘note’.
Had the poster been newer, had it been a clear error on the part of the poster in question - I would agree.
Hell - did we not just have a HUGE thread on the rules on quoting?
Really? Warnings for accidents? I’m no connoisseur of on-board faux pas, but I’m not certain I recall seeing anything more harsh than a reminder via Mod Note for an accidental violation, often with an explicit “no warning issued” memo.
The Bannhawken are right of course! We DEMAND that the mods review EVERY POST on EVERY THREAD to find EVERY MOD NOTE they’ve given in the last five years (they have to review every post because they can’t just check their records of mod notes – the board doesn’t keep a record of mod notes) and upgrade EVERY mod note that should have been a warning to BE a warning! EVERY LAST ONE! It’s the ONLY FAIR and BALANCED way!!!