# Jonathan Chance's warning of LHoD **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [July 22, 2016, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585 "2016-07-22T13:01:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2016, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/181 "2016-07-28T01:13:21Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m taking it that since you’re not saying it as a mod, I can treat it as I’d treat advice from any other poster. > [@Colibri](#): > > Since this is ATMB, I’m saying it as a mod. Wait, so now you’re giving a Mod instruction to not use antecedents in brackets within quotes? > [@](#): > > To be clear, in my own view as a mod, your post did technically violate the rule against altering quotes in the attributed text box. The insertion you made into the brackets was not appropriate, and constituted editorializing. Technically it was a warnable offense. However, since it was not done with malicious intent, it was appropriate that you receive only a note for it rather than a warning. What? How was it editorializing? LHoD did not add any change to the antecedent. He extracted the exact antecedent. That antecedent expressed a negative view of Trump, but that was the antecedent, not anything LHoD contributed to the sentence. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2016, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/182 "2016-07-28T01:30:05Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Wait, so now you’re giving a Mod instruction to not use antecedents in brackets within quotes? > > What? How was it editorializing? LHoD did not add any change to the antecedent. He extracted the exact antecedent. That antecedent expressed a negative view of Trump, but that was the antecedent, not anything LHoD contributed to the sentence. Yup, I hope the mods don’t think this discussion will simply die here. **Colibri** ’s statement has left this in confusion. At this point, I honestly don’t care that much about what the rule should be, but surely we need an unambiguous (and consensus) explanation from the mods about what the hell the rules actually are? At the moment, **Colibri** seems to have said that a verbatim statement of a controversial referent is “editorializing”. Maybe it’s undesirable, but it’s not editorializing by most people’s definition of the word. So if it’s against the rules let’s have a clear explanation of what the rule is. If there’s a rule “accuracy notwithstanding, don’t put any referent/antecedent that happens to be a controversial topic inside square brackets” can we have a clear statement of that rule so we know where we stand? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2016, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/183 "2016-07-28T01:58:21Z")
Yeah, I’m pretty confused by how he’s reaching that conclusion–his claim about what all editors would disallow isn’t supported by any cite I can find on use of brackets, and his claim that it’s editorializing is totally mystifying, absent a misunderstanding by him of what I was writing–but I’m not sure I’m going to get any answer beyond “What you did was right; what Jonathan did was wrong; don’t let it happen again.” ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2016, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/184 "2016-07-28T03:27:36Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > (Well, not _exactly_ the same. See post 114 and 129. For an alternate view, see post 132.) As the author of post 132, I want to make it clear that I think “exactly the same” is a fair descriptor. IMO, **LHoD’s** post was perfectly clear and correct standard English and I don’t think anyone should have been confused by it. I suggested that revision because I thought it might allay some of the objections raised to the post, but I don’t think it’s necessary. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2016, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/185 "2016-07-28T13:33:40Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This, however, is incorrect. I’m not asking that mistakes never happen. I’m asking that mods make real sure that a post deserves a warning (not a mod note, nor even benign neglect) before issuing that warning. Mistakes will happen, of course, but should happen less often. Cite that you’ve ever once in your entire existence here on the board asked the modes to make fewer mistakes before now. You want mods to PM you if they have a question about your intent rather than be content with the same appeal process which non-special dopers are content with because of the trauma it produces. Can you possibly imagine the added burden which this would place on mods if they were required to do that for everyone? But there is no indication you are thinking of anyone else in this or you wouldn’t seriously be proposing that mods carry on detailed trials before issuing _reversible_ warnings. > [@](#): > > If you think all I wanted was to have the warning rescinded, I understand why you’re confused at my continued posts in this thread :). Its always someone else’s fault, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2016, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/186 "2016-07-28T13:38:06Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > If there’s a rule “accuracy notwithstanding, don’t put any referent/antecedent that happens to be a controversial topic inside square brackets” can we have a clear statement of that rule so we know where we stand? And then watch the ever-shifting sands of what is controversial. I’m sure it will be as crystal clear as accusing someone of lying in Great Debates. Or the moderators could say “this is a silly interlude. Lefty didn’t break the rules and the rules are fine.” And we can say that we expect people to use a little care before flying off the handle, and that it’s the people who don’t use care who should change their ways, not the people who do. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Cite that you’ve ever once in your entire existence here on the board asked the modes to make fewer mistakes before now. Well, I’m not LHoD, and didn’t get a warning and I certainly want them to make fewer mistakes, because moderators making mistakes often seems to lead to changing rules. And a moderator taking more care would have avoided this particular brouhaha. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2016, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/187 "2016-07-28T20:11:51Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Its always someone else’s fault, isn’t it? Okay, dude. I get it. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/188 "2016-07-29T00:12:25Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Okay, dude. I get it. You use “strongly advise” when you feel that you are in the right and “dude” when someone is picking apart your argument. What if it’s my mission to see you change? Would that be annoying? Why would it be any different for mods? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2016, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585/189 "2016-07-29T01:24:51Z")
**Tokyobayer** , your posts have got a personal vibe going on that I’m uninterested in responding to in this forum. If you’d like to continue this discussion, I’ll join you in the pit; otherwise, say what you need to but don’t expect something from me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathan-chances-warning-of-lhod/760585.md?page=9)