The most recent thread about altering quote boxes was on the changing of a comma to a period - and the poster was not warned but noted, because the change
a) could have been an accident
b) didn’t alter the overall meaning of the text
but it was noted in that thread again - the rules regarding quoting.
The post in question in this thread was ‘no accident’.
Well, a couple of reason. For one, the Pit is meant to be the “rules light” forum on the board - which to me means both fewer rules, and a lighter hand in enforcing them. I usually go with a note first, and a warning only if the poster persists. The rules on this board can get a little arcane, and I don’t think it’s entirely fair to expect the posters to remember all the minutia, particularly when you have major changes to the rules between separate forums. Plus, as the place set aside particularly for posters to get in fights, I think we have to give some leeway for people getting their blood up and going a little too far.
It’s also a very minor, largely technical violation of the rule. There was obviously no intent to deceive, and there was no ambiguity about who had written the editorial text. Consider these two alternative posts:
While the first one is a violation of the rules, and the second is not, the distinction between the two is not enough to sustain giving a warning to the first one. The semantic content is identical. By warning the first one, I’d be, in effect, giving someone a warning for improperly formatting their post.
And I’m just not enough of an asshole to do that.
I’m not aware of any situation involving someone getting warned for this specific rule, and claiming that it had been an accident. We don’t warn people for accidentally breaking the rules - but we don’t necessarily always believe people when they say they posted something by accident. Without knowing the specific examples you’re referencing here, I can’t really comment on why they received warnings instead of mod notes.
I dunno, did we? Not everyone reads every thread - particularly in ATMB. And not everybody remembers every thread they’ve read. I’m not going to come down heavier on someone because there’s a thread on another forum that, for all I know, they’ve never even seen.
Sorry, didn’t see this post. Your link doesn’t go to the warning, though, it goes to someone describing the warning which isn’t really that much help. Without seeing the specific warning, it doesn’t seem like a great example of someone changing a quote “by accident,” since one doesn’t generally “accidentally” download and install a program that alters the text you write online. But, really, the whole quote changing browser extension thing is a sufficiently novel situation that I don’t think it’s a great source of precedent for anything other than issues specifically around quote changing browser extensions.
Dude, even though I objected to the Drumpf Warning, even I recognize that it was only after several mod notes.
Though I will say it was accidental–in that the addon was not advertised as modifying outgoing text. It was crappily designed, and got even legit journalists in trouble. And the mods did say he could keep using it–as long as he’d manually change the text back.
Still, I can’t think of any other situation where accidentally doing something multiple times couldn’t get you a Warning.
That thread does not show an example of anyone receiving a warning as a first hit. However, what it does show is some people receiving Notes even after they were aware it was against the rules and they indicated they were aware and didn’t care.
To be clear, bienville mentions three posts by SlackerInc, only the third incident drew a Warning.
The “accident” part comes in when the person wasn’t aware that this would also change text inside of quotes. Or, the person didn’t think it through. IOW, not done on purpose, therefore it’s an accident. But… once the poster does know, any future infractions would not be.
Since we’re on the subject, how about spelling errors in quoted text? Clearly if you call attention to them it could be jerkish, but I’ve done enough editing to have an urge to silently correct them - which I mostly resist.
But the use of sic calls attention to the misspelling, right? If someone misspells multiple words, or even intentionally uses text speak spelling, repeatedly adding sic is a potentially a negative comment on the quoted text.
That’s true, and that’s the concern of Voyager. I wouldn’t use it in quoting another poster, though I might on an outside quote. It was sort of a joke. I guess we can agree that it wasn’t a good one.
