So you could give an example of modding a quote box situation that involved a single punctuation change from the past? Maybe you can - but I’d be incredibly surprised.
Wrong.
See Collibri’s post #11, in which he quotes only a part of Inner Stickler’s post, missing out the first paragraph entirely. He doesn’t note the omission. Are you claiming that he broke the rules?
wrong. Even Tom says that it doesn’t change the meaning.
the FAQ is specifically talking about making changes to the quoted text -
(modded quote about quotes above so the quote tags work, don’t want to get noted on a note quoting quote rules where I broke the quoting rules)
So - since ‘normal editorial rules apply’ - if you make a change - you note it.
Partially quoting - taking a full paragraph or sentence for the response - is not the same as ‘changing’ it - unless you take enough as to change the context of the person you’re quoting.
I also think its good form to state ‘post shortened’ outside the quote box to indicate that you have done so - but its not required per the FAQ.
As for if the period changed the context - there is room for debate - as another poster also pointed out that it changes the meaning - albeit subtley and in this case not enough in and of itself - but it does take the portion out and make the statement ‘harder’ than what the poster appeared to intend in that post.
How so?
“I’m a Sanders hater.”
“I’m a Sanders hater,”
Explain the difference.
(oh, and post shortened, just to make sure)
Adding:
You say it makes the statement “harder.” I disagree, but even so that’s not the same as changing the meaning.
Either someone reported it, which is laughable, or tom chose to make a note of his own volition, which is laughable.
as with the comma means that the user has additional things to say about the statement - reasons why, possibly to reverse it or any number of possible things.
Any additional context - which the poster added post comma - is lost.
As I said - in this case its very subtle and doesn’t change the full statement - but in the end, it does not matter since modifying the quote was the offense - not that it actually changed the meaning.
making it ‘harder’ simply means that it the ‘end of statement’ with no qualifications. It is a change, as again, any additional commentary and context is lost - which changes the statement.
Have a pleasant day.
Then the mod note can just be filed under: Note to self: Be careful not to accidentally do this in the future.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the mods to parse out what is done accidentally and what was done on purpose.
Okay. See the two sentences. See the period at the end of one. A comma at the end of the other? That’s the difference.
Next question. Was that a change?
Technically, yes.
Did it change the meaning?
Not required by the rule.
Was it worth a warning.
No warning was given.
Moderation on the Dope is sclerotic.
However, no matter how imbecilic or vacuous the futility of their inane sedulity, nothing will change, and the very definition of pointless trifling is to complain about the moderation on any forum.
Not really. Additional context can be added after a period, too. Better to have used an ellipsis to show that the post was shortened.
since the comma was there - additional context was there originally (or atleast can be inferred to be there)
Yes, a person can add additional context after a period. But its not quite the same thing in this case.
and agreed - the elipsis would have been the correct edit/change - assuming again, that the person intended to edit and it wasn’t a mistake - which is why it was a note - and not a warning.
What if it had been "“I’m a Sanders hater” with no comma? Would you think that a subtle alteration?
what part of this is hard fro you to understand?
THe person doing the quoting cut off the rest of the sentence - the addition of the period made it appear that that was ‘the end of the sentence’.
Had they done the same thing - without the comma - and the original sentence was longer than the 4 words - then yes - same thing applies.
what part of that is difficult for you?
In this specific case - it did not change the ‘end meaning’ of the quote - but it does change the context of the quote.
and all of that is irrelevant - since the quoted text was not as originally posted and no ‘edited by xxx’ notes were made (nor was this a normal editorial edit) - which is what the note was for - changing the content of the quote.
Any excerpting can change meaning. But since excerpting of sentences and paragraphs has never been moderated as editing a quote, even when there is no indication that the post has been shortened, it’s hard to come up with a legitimate reason for moderating the failure to consult the The Chicago Manual of Style in excerpting a clause.
That said, what is the mod-approved notation here? An ellipsis? An ellipsis inside brackets?
(Oh god, should I have put The Chicago Manual of Style in italics? Shit! I did it again!)
For purposes of example only. This does not reflect what Peter Morris actually said.
one last time -
he modified the quote.
period.
end of story.
Which is totally fine. Sometimes.
Right: it’s possible to follow the letter of the rule, as you did, while violating the spirit. After all, excerpting posts is fine, which is all you did.
The question on the table is the reverse: when someone violates the letter of the rule without violating the spirit, is it noteworthy?
Given the stuff that doesn’t get mod-noted here, I’m in the camp saying this is too trivial even to note.
Point of order. It’s not mod approved. **Ed **is the source of this rule IIRC. Ed makes the rules, the mods do their best to follow them.