A brief exchange followed, where Jonathon clarified:
The manner in which this rule is now being enforced is, it seems to me, new and not at all helpful.
IMO it is impossible to attribute a quote to a poster that is not in a quote box; quite frankly, I wouldn’t believe they really said that until I actually saw the post quoted with the link intact. It isn’t “falsely attributing a quote to another poster” because the only way the board has to allow us to attribute things to other posters is with quote boxes; anything else is de facto not a fact.
And as far as I can recall, the rule has never been that text could not be in quotes; how the hell else would I have a hypothetical conversation with another poster?
Anyway, this mod warning seems inconsistent with past practices and with the spirit of the rule.
Based on the way the quote rule has been enforced throughout my time here, at least, this was not a rule violation.
The text inside a formal, board-generated quote box, leading with “Originally posted by…” is considered sacrosanct. Any other use of quotation marks, italics, etc. to quote ( or misquote) a poster has never been considered to be the same thing. Here is just one exampleof dozens that I can find right away, where TPTB reinforced the idea that text outside of a formal quote box can be edited.
This came up recently in another thread, and despite a few mods indicating they thought “a quote is a quote” initially, the final decision as posted by Colibri was that it is only a rules violation if using the quote box with attribution.
There’s always been a major diff in quoting within quote-tags (which is to be treated like quoting in a scholarly document), and using quote-marks. We do (and have) allowed paraphrasing within quote-marks, for instance. But we have NOT allowed completely mis-stating or distorting in quote-marks.
So, for instance, I could say that AClockworkMelon just said, “Great find” to Crazyhorse. But I could NOT say that AClockworkMelon said, “Duh, how obvious” to Crazyhorse.
Common mod approach has always taken the stance that Jonathan took on this one. This is NOT a situation of a parody with no name attached.
As Dex said, unattributed text in quote tags can be OK - though if it’s clearly aimed at another poster I’d be irritable about it - but specifically attributed text within quote tags is not. The minute that attributed a position that Terr did not specifically take to him it crossed a line of misrepresentation that helps no one and further debate not at all.
This is a new interpretation of the rules I had never heard of before. If this is a new rule, it seems unfair to retro-actively apply it before the rule change was publicly announced.
Also, it’s silly. It’s clear Yog was being sarcastic and not actually quoting Terr. I get that quote boxes are sacrosanct, because that’s a bright line rule. But to claim a parody of someone’s views is out of bounds because it’s in quote marks is pretty penny-ante. I suppose if it becomes an official rule I’ll comply, but I don’t think warning should be given out until it does.
I agree. Unless one argues that parodying someone’s views is a personal attack, which I could understand, constitutes a personal attack, I see no rules violation.
I disagree. For as long as I can remember, the rule has been that you CAN alter and paraphrase within " ", but NOT go so far as to distort the meaning. It has NEVER been the case that “you can say whatever you want.” EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN"T BE DONE: Raftpeople said, “The use of quotations marks is forbidden.” That’s NOT what you said, that’s not even close to what you said, and therefore I can’t attribute it to you.
I agree, IF it were a new rule, but it’s NOT a new rule. The rule has always been:
I dont think the instance we’re talking about was parody, so much as snarky (and possibly insulting.) However, it clearly cast Terr in a a bad light, “even if meant in jest.”
Repeat: This is not new. This is the way it’s always been.
Can you give an example of a warning that was issued for this before? Because my understanding of the rule was the same as Larry Borgia’s - anything inside quote tags (not quotation marks) is sacrosanct; quotation marks are fair game for both paraphrasing and parody.
I did some googling and I see some ambiguity. I do see posts by you stating your position over the years, you seem to be fairly consistent. But I also see discussions that include moderators that seem to support the view “just don’t change inside quote tags, anything else is ok”.
So it was not nearly as black and white as I thought it was.
Yipe, that does seem to be a much stricter interpretation of the quoting rules than I’ve ever considered before. I understand the worry that someone might hypothetically think Terr really said that, but… I don’t think such a person should necessarily be catered to, because (and no offense to such literal-minded folks) it seems to me we’ve always leaned–or at least aimed–toward a slightly more sophisticated demographic. Not that there’s an official sign that says, “Sorry, You Must Be THIS Able to Understand Hyperbole to Ride the SDMB Roller-Coaster,” but it’s fairly implied, no?
I hope it’d still be okay to imagine how someone else would respond if you state it clearly in the hypothetical. Like, if someone were in a discussion with me, I think it’d be perfectly fair to say,
Not only would it be a fair cop, I think the fact that it’s rather obviously not anything I actually said (for one thing, it’s too short!) should make it legal. If someone takes it seriously, it’s kinda on them to ask for clarification.
If nothing else, since I really think most of us understood the rule as “Quote tags sacrosanct, hyperbolic rephrasing in quotation marks not so much” – and since for that reason I don’t think Yogsooth intended to break or flout the rule – maybe what’d be fair would be dialing down from the Warning, changing it to just a note or even a mere comment, and then if the mod consensus is that the rules really do need to be more tightly enforced because they’ve been flouted too often, restating the rules to be clearer?
I’m having a hard time understanding the logic of any of Jonathan Chance’s recent mod actions. Lately, it seems like every time I see his name, he’s closing threads that don’t need to be closed or scolding people for infractions that are barely within the letter of the law and nowhere near the spirit.
Jonathan, I urge you to remember that your primary (and arguably only) role as a moderator is to help make the board a more enjoyable place for posters to post. The fight against ignorance is not well served when people can’t freely call out citations for being false, use rhetorical devices such as paraphrase to illustrate why someone else’s argument is wrong, or discuss a topic at all because you found the discussion annoying and locked the thread.
We’ve done this before, mods. That particular thread deals 99% with misattributed quotes within quote tags (bolded, as to not confuse Jonathan Chance), but there is sufficient (IMO) secondary discussion regarding parody, paraphrased, or preemptively predicted sentiment within quotemarks (again, bolded for both clarity and emphasis) to make that thread a fairly clear discussion drawing the line between quotes that happened and that did not happen, and the manner in which they may be recorded on this board.
It’s interesting that that thread makes a few references to this older 2011 thread on the subject, and the mods do a good job of completely avoiding that aspect of the conversation (it’s nice that Tuba got the chance to shut down the conversation on that 2011 thread, it was almost getting somewhere useful for everyone - whew!). There are a few very interesting observations from moderators:
And finally:
There are a lot of very specific quote**“tag”** rules, and - as far as I can tell - zero quote **“mark” **rules. I’m apt to go with C K Dex’s very literary take on the matter - that quote tags (please don’t make me color that red and in 16 pt font…) are a clear indication of another poster’s comments. Anything else is … not. At least, that’s my reading of it. And if that’s not correct, then why all the discussion about it? Why not make a blanket statement that “all quotes (marks or tags or otherwise) are to be moderated the same”? Why would TPTB endure multiple threads over multiple years over multiple moderator terms, etc. to continually hash out minutia regarding this subject, when the rules have been so clearly been laid out?
I mean, maybe it’s because the rules aren’t there to actually set the tone of the board and set clear guidelines on how discussions would best take place - but rather, rules are there to simply be adjusted to best suit whatever whimsical fancy any particular mod has decided upon that particular day, and all the rest of the mods must then readjust their clocks to accommodate for that particular wrench in the clockwork. Maybe…
I take objection to “Bam, Warning.” Warnings are not a joke. They are precursor to banning someone.
Even if the rule were violated, it is a rule that just gets a mod note. I know, I’ve gotten them before. And I even bitched at the person out who got offended. Still only a mod note.
Warnings are for serious violations of the rules. They are not for the little tiny things. Did anyone actually think that Terr said what was in quotes? No. Thus it was not a misquote. Nothing was harmed by it.
Warnings are for when you know someone has intentionally broken the rules or has an egregious violation of them. They are not tiny things you hand out like candy. They are not Emeril’s adding extra garlic to his recipes.
If you want users to treat Warnings with respect, you need to, too.
The rule against altering words in the quote tags is a good one, and it serves a useful purpose in preventing direct misattribution and dishonest quotation.
But the issue of intent and interpretation need to be taken into account here. And no-one with a reading age greater than 13 actually thinks that YogSosoth’s post was intended to confuse people regarding Terr’s opinion.
His post was basically his own—admittedly hyperbolic and sarcastic—interpretation of Terr’s overall philosophy regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He basically announced this fact when he began his post with the words, “Answering for Terr…”
Hell, it couldn’t be more obvious if he had actually begun his post with: “The following is my hyperbolic and sarcastic reading of Terr’s arguments in this thread.” No-one reading what he wrote could be in any doubt that it was YogSosoth’s interpretation. There was no intention to deceive, and no deception involved.
We can argue about how accurate his interpretation of Terr’s position was, but if this qualifies as warnable misrepresentation, then you’d better just close down GD. Not only does the warning fly in the face of the actual written rules, but it also flies in the face of the spirit behind the rule against altering quotations.