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?
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.”
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.
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.
Its always someone else’s fault, isn’t it?
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.
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.
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?
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.