The moderation wasn’t for excerpting, but for adding something in the quote box that wasn’t originally in the material that was quoted—namely, a period.
Is it much ado about nothing? Does it make a difference? Maybe not here, but I can imagine situations in which it would. Suppose I were to mention, in a post, that I’ve eaten baby asparagus. For someone to quote it thusly
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
I’ve eaten baby.
[/QUOTE]
would not be okay, but this
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
I’ve eaten baby
[/QUOTE]
would be within the rules, and the lack of a period alerts the reader that there may be some context missing.
ATMB is not the Pit or even the Pit Light. If all you want to do is hurl insults at the mods, this is not the place for it. Unfortunately, you can’t Pit mods (at least not for their moderation) so there isn’t any forum here where these types of comments are acceptable.
You can discuss almost anything here, as long as you are reasonably polite about it. Simply bitching or hurling insults isn’t discussing, though. If you think something needs to change, say so. If all you want to do is bitch, don’t do that.
Post #23 quotes the rule. “Normal editing rules apply.” No I have never been employed as an editor. I (and I’m sure most if not all mods) will not warn any good faith attempt at posting part of a quote even if it doesn’t strictly follow whatever editing conventions are normally used. If there is a minor change that doesn’t appear to be malicious or doesn’t effect the meaning of the original post then maybe a note reminding the poster what the rule is might be warranted.
My point was that context can be missing just as easily when an independent clause is excerpted as when a sentence is excerpted. Consider these two examples: “Hitler was a great man. He killed Hitler!,” and “Hitler was a great man–after all, he killed Hitler!” Whether the misleading excerpted quote is “Hitler was a great man.” or it is “Hitler was a great man” is solely a function of the style choice of the author of the source material.
So whether a period is added to an excerpted independent clause doesn’t actually tell you whether something is missing. Which is why, I presume, everyone assumes that a quoted post might be missing important context.
So you’re left with just sort of mindlessly enforcing a rule about not adding things to quotes, which itself isn’t even an absolute rule since editorial modifications are permitted. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that there is some style manual out there that allows an unbracketed period to be put at the end of an excerpted independent clause.
True. And even if you don’t excerpt and quote the entire post, sometimes the context of a post is only apparent from the exchange which preceded it.
But that’s impractical and impossible to enforce as a rule. For one thing, if you made everyone quote entire posts you would lose the advantage of making clear which part of the quoted post you’re addressing. And for another, the context of posts, and by extension whether they’ve been changed by a given excerpt, is frequently subject to considerable differences of opinion. So it’s not practical to have rules about that.
But the idea of not altering (adding, changing) texts in quote boxes is a pretty straight bright line rule that’s very easy to adhere to and to objectively enforce.
That’s a different case. Removal of the quote marks makes someone else’s words seem like mine. That really is a change in meaning. I expect that sort of thing would be a warnable action if someone did it seriously.
I also repeat my earlier statement. When clipping a post for quoting, it is very easy to accidentally leave in the final punctuation mark. Most likely this is what happened here, with no misrepresentation intended.
Removing the quote marks would only happen deliberately. It could not be an accident, or at least not very likely.
Ok. Objectively enforce the rule for me. Given a source post of “Hitler was a great man–after all, he killed Hitler!,” which of the following excerpts violates the rule, if any?
(1) Hitler was a great man
(2) Hitler was a great man–
(3) Hitler was a great man.
(4) Hitler was a great man. . . .
(5) Hitler was a great man. [post shortened]
(6) Hitler was a great man[.]
(3) and (5) violate the rules. (I’m not sure about (4) - I myself generally put ellipses in brackets, but it’s possible that it’s also acceptable to not do that.)
I agree that the other quotes changed the context of the post (or at least enabled the quoter to twist the meaning). I wouldn’t be surprised if something like that is judged to be egregious enough it’s possible that this might be covered by some other rule. But it’s not a violation of the “altering quotes” rule, as I see it.
And if, in fact, (3) or (5) was consistent with some editorial manual’s prescription for excerpting independent clauses, would that change your assessment?
I’d be surprised if that was the case for the same reasons that I think they (should) violate the rules here.
If that was the case, then it would be more ambiguous, but I still think it would be inappropriate here. These forums feature exchanges of ideas that are frequently adversarial in nature, and allowing any sort of changes opens the door to abuse. Again, that’s not to say you can’t commit these abuses anyway, but this is a good hard and fast rule that’s helpful in this regard.
But that’s not your real standard (i.e., “any sort of changes”), since you would permit (6) and maybe (4)–both of which include changes. Your real standard is, I think, to allow changes based on some unidentified set of editorial conventions. That’s what makes me think it’s not right to call it very easy to adhere to and to objectively enforce.
I’m not expert on the subject, but I think all of my examples fail to adhere to The Chicago Manual of Style.
Obviously, all of this is much ado about nearly nothing. But so was the mod note in question.
(6) and (4) do not include changes. It’s widely accepted and understood that the text in brackets (and possibly ellipses) does not represent a part of the quote - that it’s an insertion by the quoter. So that’s not a change to the text of the person being quoted.
But if you add in your own punctuation to the text being quoted, the reader has no way to understand that these are your insertions, and the entire text including your own punctuation is thus being presented as that of the quotee.
What you suggested is that perhaps the “some editorial manual” allows for some leeway in altering quotes. But that’s still a change to the quote, in that the reader assumes it to be the work of the one being quoted. That’s not the same as brackets, which are clearly understood to not be part of the quote, such that the quote itself is not altered.
But there are two rules. One rule is “do not change text in quote boxes”. The other rule is “Do not modify text in quote boxes in order to change the clear meaning of the post”. All of those violate the 2nd rule.
It’s arguable whether any of them technically violate the exact letter of the don’t change posts rule, but ALL of them would break the don’t be a jerk rule, and that should be enough for a warning.