I know it just happened, and I am not a fan of going back and changing a ruling, but I have a hard time understanding why this didn’t deserve a proper warning rather than a note. It’s as blatant as I’ve ever seen and we are not talking about a newbie making a mistake.
[/quote] @Common Tater -The way you have added ellipsis has changed the meaning of the quote in the first instance, and not actually removed anything in the second instance. Here is the original quote:
[Quote=iamthewalrus(:3]
I think almost no one would say that, right now, we should change the law to throw the borders wide open.On the other hand, I believe that many people would agree that open borders are a thing to strive for in the future.
[/quote]
[…]
Do not do this again.[/moderating]
[/quote]
Please ignore any irony as I make this nested quote attempt.
It’s my understanding that posting history comes into play, and so it should. If you have no history of being a jerk you’ll get treated a wee bit better than if you have been mod’ed or warned previously.
Heck, police departments work under these conditions.
Only to a certain degree. If you call someone a cunt in GQ I’m rather confident you’d get a warning even if you’re generally a nice poster. And frankly, I doubt Common Tater falls into that category anyways.
It was clearly changing text in the quote box and I grant it could have merited a warning. Before issuing any warning I usually go through a certain thought process because I prefer to interpret generously when possible. Here was what I considered:
[ul]
[li]Was it intentional? The thread had been moving relatively quickly this morning. I saw a few quick posts back and forth and Common Tater had been replying to multiple folks. Ostensibly **CT **could have not intended to change the meaning. There were two ellipsis added and the second one was superfluous. Maybe.[/li]
[li]Was it necessary to further a point that **CT **was trying to make? In other words, was the misquote done so that a rhetorical point could be made. In this instance, I didn’t think so. The post could have been a standalone as it wasn’t really responsive to what was being quoted at all. So in that regard, it didn’t seem like it was done to serve any purpose.[/li]
[li]Was there any history of similar behavior in the past? Not that I am aware of. Sometimes folks get tripped up on the quote rules since it rarely comes up. I recently had the same exchange with an even longer time poster with even greater posts to clarify the rule (in a thread that has been cornfielded) so that also influenced my judgment.[/li][/ul]
Given those things, I elected to issue a Note rather than a Warning.
It was undoubtedly intentional. He cropped out “almost no one would say that”. And it undoubtedly was promoting an idea he wanted put forth, that lefties are a bunch of “open borders now!” supporters.
If there’s one thing I can’t stand here, it’s a poster who tries to get someone else a more severe consequence. It’s like soccer players who wave imaginary cards at the referee, or who try to get a player a red card when the referee is about to issue a yellow.
Speaking for myself, I will usually not give a warning to anyone if it’s their first time (by my memory) of them doing that thing.
Other factors do wager in, of course, like the degree of offense (example, saying “fuck you” to someone outside of the Pit or using hate speech—although I have just given a note for these too, in the past), whether or not the poster has a habit of getting notes or warnings already (I tend to note those who don’t at least once first), how long the person has been around (I tend to give newer people notes and only bust out the warnings if it’s a more serious offense AND it’s someone who has been around for awhile and clearly should know how things are), and even depending on specific things (like, the changing quote thing will always get just a note from me, unless I specifically remember that person having done it before).
Especially given the fact that in my very first sentence I said I wasn’t a fan of changing a ruling. I just thought you extended the benefit of the doubt a little too far.
Seeking clarity is fine. So everything up through post #6 can be considered seeking, and getting clarity.
In posts 7 and 8, CarnalK argues with the clarity that has been given. That’s not seeking clarity; that’s agitating for a stronger action. Or, at least, that’s how it appears to me. Hence, my post.
I argued with points one and two because they were precisely why I was surprised at the ruling. i.e. istm both intentional and meant to further a point. I’m not really arguing about the “everybody gets one free pass” reasoning. But let me state clearly: I don’t want the ruling changed and this will be the last I have to say about it.
People don’t just randomly insert completely superfluous ellipses into things they’re quoting. I don’t think the second ellipse was superfluous - I think it was just misplaced.
In addition to removing the words “almost no one would say that” from the first sentence s/he quoted, CT also removed the opening words “On the other hand” from the second sentence. The second edit was necessary to support the first one. Because the first edit had the effect of reversing the meaning of the first quote from a rejection of an idea to an endorsement of it. As a result, the second sentence was transformed from being pointed in the opposite direction as the first to being in the same direction, and the words “On the other hand” no longer applied - the two points were now on the same hand, so to speak. So those words had to come out.
But there were no ellipses to mark this edit. So I think the second set of ellipses were intended to be placed there, and were accidently inserted a few words later (where they served no purpose at all, as you note).
Note that this is not intended as any sort of commentary on the appropriateness of the moderating decision.