Man, this is such a bizarre thread to me. I don’t understand how people found LHoD’s post confusing and understand even less the idea that the multiquote would have been obviously better. I think what he did do was the best and most clear (obviously this isn’t universal, but it’s just so odd to me).
This is basically the one thing I wanted to say, but avoided it because I knew they were deliberating.
I’d actually suggest that, if you feel the need to write “you should have known,” or similar, that’s a pretty good sign that the poster wasn’t trying to say what you think they were. That, to that poster at least, the rule wasn’t clear.
So, if you feel tempted to post that, take a step back. And, if you still think a Warning is necessary, there’s no need to phrase it in a way that will give an obvious counterargument and makes the infraction defensible.
And, well, if it is ambiguous, start with a note. I personally never saw why, even if he had done what you thought, that this was a Warnable offense for a first time. It’s not as if he used it to attack the poster.
I would advise you to use multiquotes if you want to avoid confusion.
Perhaps you might be more careful, then, about accusing others of “sloppy reading” in the future. Not everyone prefers the same format you do.
The problem I had with your original post is that it had the appearance of editorializing (even if it wasn’t), and so instead of clarifying something so that I didn’t need to go back and read the earlier posts, it prompted me to go back and see if those were actually SA’s words. As it turned out, they were not.
So if we view that concern in isolation, it seems to me that it would be adequately addressed with quotation marks inside brackets.
No worries. I’ve been called worse. Probably today.
I wouldn’t view that in isolation, especially since we are talking about best practices going forward (this particular case is done). I would say that quotes in inside brackets have two potential problems:
-
Have you ever seen quotes inside brackets like what is being proposed? I haven’t. Might it not cause even more confusion because of that?
-
Who is being quoted? If you’re quoting the same poster who wrote the larger post, that would be one thing. Quoting another poster (as was the case here) can be problematic (as has been pointed out).
You’ve mentioned problems with the multi-quote format, but have not told us what those problems are. I’m just not seeing what those problems are. Can you elaborate?
It would be better to simply acknowledge that people can and have read and interpreted things differently. If someone or multiple someones makes a suggestion on a way to add more clarity, an act of magnanimity goes a long way.
But I believe LHoD is answering with his genuine belief that it was the clearest option. I happen to agree and I think using the multi-quote option would have been less clear. Since it’s a matter of interpretation, neither choice is inherently superior and I don’t see LHoD’s response as lacking magnanimity so much as clarifying that yes, after all the discussion, he still sincerely reads his way as clearer (just like the multi-quote supporters still read that way as clearer).
Not to speak for him, but I know that I feel, seriously, like I’m in some bizarro world reading this argument. I really and truly cannot grok how his method was confusing or how the multi-quote method would be clearer. I do believe that others are on the exact opposite side, but I cannot see it/interpret it as they do.
Saying* “I don’t regret that some random people read it sloppily and misunderstood: if you read that sloppily, that’s on you.”* is not magnanimous. Think of it this way - if your boss honestly misread something and let you know, asking you to be more clear, even if they are wrong or independent if they are wrong - it will not do well to tell them that their sloppy reading is on them and you have no regrets. Leroooooyyyy!
If the boss analogy is not on point, think of it as a peer at work. Sure you may be right - but it doesn’t build any relationship.
All of this is merely my observation.
Neither the boss nor the peer are on point, because LHoD is not attempting and failing to communicate with some specific person at whom the comment was addressed.
And clearly LHoD should not be under any obligation to consider the most careless potential reader.
In any event, your implicit assumption here is that there exists an unequivocally better way to communicate, that would definitely have been clearer for a greater proportion of the readership, and that LHoD is for some reason obstinately refusing to countenance it. But that’s not the case - I think it’s a moot point whether multi-quoting would have been clearer for more people.
Take it for what you will. I’ve already stated I agreed with LHoD’s initial writing. It’s the response afterward that I point out. You continue to do it here - you accuse those who interpreted the writing differently of being careless. IMO that serves no purpose - it doesn’t encourage anyone who disagrees with you to reconsider their position. Instead, it attacks them as failing in some way. I just don’t think that’s a good way to bring people along. Rather than call people careless, or having read sloppily, etc. giving people an explanation and a way out I find works better. YMMV.
The bottom line is that multiquoting would avoid any risk of violating the rule on changing quotes within the quote box. So once again, with respect to SDMB rules, I would advise doing that instead paraphrasing in brackets.
I made that accusation, but it’s not flippant. Rather, when I asked for any coherent interpretation of my post that was different from what I intended, I got nada. Sure, some people initially thought I was saying something different–but that different interpretation renders the rest of my post incoherent. (Edit: it’s the second half of post 52 I’m talking about here).
If someone reads the first part of a post, interprets it a certain way, continues reading the post to find it’s incoherent, and doesn’t go back to reread the first part, that’s careless reading.
I’m not accusing people of carelessness for “intrepret[ing] the writing differently.” I’m accusing people of carelessness for either not noticing that the entire post is incoherent under their interpretation, or noticing and not bothering to reread.
At this point, the way I handled it did not violate the rule, though–unless we get a change to the rule. So my way doesn’t run that risk either. Setting that side-by-side with my stylistic judgment, that multiquoting risks losing complex ideas in a way that my method did not, I’m unlikely to go with multiquoting next time.
If this is more than just advice, if it’s an official mod instruction, please let me know. I’m not trying to be defiant or anything, but I am expressing a difference of stylistic judgment with you.
I think I wasn’t clear - I’m not describing the underlying incident. Your warning was rescinded and your point was made. I don’t see virtue in continuing to try and score rhetorical points in this manner. That’s what I mean by being magnanimous - nothing will come of it and my suggestion was that it would be better received to simply let it go after the warning was rescinded.
Take a step back and imagine how you’d react if you were on the other side. Let’s say you made a mistake. We’re human and it happens. I’d like to believe that in that event I’d be recognize that and make my retraction. But if the other person chose to continually bring it up, well that makes me less likely to be persuaded to their point of view in the future. Would you talk with your boss or your peer this way, calling them careless or being sloppy? If not, why not?
eta:
This is a bit like arguing that you had the right of way. Not something you want to be telling the ambulance driver as he takes you to the hospital.
I had a really long post earlier explaining why I don’t think letting it go is sufficient. I thought for a few hours before writing it. Magnanimity is great, but in this case, I think it’s important to let Chance know that his moderation technique needs to, as I wrote before, rest the finger outside the trigger guard. It was his carelessness that needs to change, and it is more important that he be magnanimous in moderation than that I be magnanimous in responding to it.
I’m not. I’m telling it to the cop who nearly ran me over when he didn’t pay attention to driving patterns, and to another cop who (and here the metaphor stretches) criticizes me for relying on right-of-way laws, since cops might run you over.
This seems to me a rather odd interpretation of the last two pages (since the actual retraction of the Warning). My sense is that it has been a continued harangue to get LHoD and (the majority?) who thought what he wrote was perfectly fine to admit that although he actually did nothing wrong, he still bears some responsibility.
As LHoD said, nobody has actually presented any alternate interpretation of what he wrote that makes a jot of sense.
The existence of any problem here at all required not only a hurried or careless initial reading (anyone can do that when tired or busy, that’s not the problem), but then a jump to an inference of malicious intent without careful re-reading. Given that, I was a little underwhelmed by the not-pology that seems to be the mod consensus on this.
Based on the rules, as I understand it there two ways to not violate the rules when quoting: to use square brackets accurately in accordance with the rules; or to use multi-quote in accordance with the rules. Rather than a style-guide type of discussion implying that one of these ways to comply with the rules is better than the other way to comply with the rules, I would have thought the more important take-home point from this for all of is if it appears at first glance that someone is being malicious, read what they wrote again more carefully to make sure.
YES!
This is best practices for everyone, and I’d extend the practice to this: Try to read what others write in the most charitable light possible.
That is, if there are two interpretations of what someone means, and one of them is some seriously stupid bullshit and the other isn’t, don’t go for the cheap shot and choose the bullshit interpretation. If one interpretation is calling your father a whore and the other isn’t, assume the person isn’t calling your dad a whore.
That’s best practice (and even then, it’s a subset of the best practice of reading carefully for coherent meaning). But for mods, it’s more than best practice. It should be a requirement of the position.
I would strongly advise you to use multiquoting in order to avoid misunderstandings in the future.