I think the rule has evolved from its original intent, and at times it has been applied a little too strictly IMO, which is why I started the discussion on email with the other mods. While I can’t speak for the other mods, it is my understanding that we are all in agreement that both of the examples I gave are within the rules and would not draw a warning.
The posts in that thread were deemed to be in conflict with the quote rule because, despite the obvious humorous and non-malicious intent, the thread involved making things up and attributing them to other posters. As I said, any use of the quote tags that could give someone the impression that a poster said something he/she did not say is against the rules. Even though the thread seemed like harmless fun, we thought it would set a bad precedent.
Leaving the “originally posted by” label on a quote does raise the bar quite a bit for what alterations are acceptable. Had I left even sven’s name attached to the quote in the thread linked in the OP, that probably would have been pushing the rules, even with the clearly labeled disclaimers.
Actually I said that Giraffe’s post did a good job of making it clear which words were his and which even sven’s. I still think the use of the quote box that way is something that can be abused, and I suggested some rules I wouldn’t mind seeing that could take care of the problem. No offense-taker, I: if I want to make a silly person look silly, I find his own words, unadorned, usually work best. See above.
But you were talking about the potential for misunderstanding Giraffe’s quote box. There was none. I don’t believe that anyone would believe that even sven posted that.
So threads are closed because of flippant “quoting,” but mods can do it if it’s funny, or only done to highlight humor?
**Giraffe’**s requote was not even funny. If the standard is humor, as he says, he failed.
So, let’s ban the Mod! It would be great to see some of the people with power around here held to the same standard that paying members are. Even better, Giraffe, resign, because, even though you contested the rule, you acknowledge you violated it, if you accept Cajun Man’s assertion.
Big Red, let’s cut across. We’re on the verge of conflict when there’s no real underlying disagreement. You think Giraffe’s post was okay. So do I, as I said in the first place. You and I agree that the real issue is whether words are likely to be wrongly attributed to a poster who would disagree with or be unfairly tainted by association with them, and I think we agree that that’s bad. We apparently disagree in how much the use and/or abuse of quote boxes can contribute to this situation. Okay. I might be wrong. But the grounds for contention (it seems to me) are the rules I proposed:
“I wouldn’t mind a rule that specified* no* tampering inside quote boxes, except perhaps for ellipses, and I’d like a technical innovation that inserted the post # that was being boxed. But I’m pretty convinced that Giraffe, for example, has a handle on the uses and abuses involved. I would like to be sure that everybody else is also, though” (italics added, even though it highlights an error in diction).
I think that the rhetorical device Giraffe used (one more time: legitimately, in my opinion) is not as valuable as an absolute assurance that quotes in boxes are exact and accurate. There are other ways to make the argument.
Agreed, King Of Soup.
You’re right, brownie55, it would be great to see some of the people with power around here held to the same standard that paying members are. We should scruitinize every poster’s post and not just the mods’ posts.
You think the double standards favour mods? They do not. If Ooner had been the one to change the quote do you think there would be this pit thread?
Sure, Giraffe should know the rules, mistakes happen, STFU.
I’m not seeing a clear violation of it in the Giraffe post we’re discussing. It modifies another’s post, but not to make that poster look bad or to attribute ideas to that poster that he would disavow, or in fact to mislead any reader as to the true intent of either person. I would agree, as **Big Red ** would not, that use of the quote box containing the bulk of even sven’s prior post, and the positioning of that name immediately above, though not inside, the box, does tend to attribute the box’ contents to even sven. I think, however, that it does not do so falsely, because the post announces that the material in the quote-box has been tampered with, marks every departure from the original, and explains the reason why. That reason is a rhetorical shortcut to critique even sven’s position. This tactic could have been and perhaps should have been forgone in the interest of a rule protecting the sanctity of the quote box (and I kind of support that, as I said earlier). But even Cajun Man, while he says the rule is unbendable, doesn’t clarify in that post what the rule actually disallows. So while I’m still in favor of a clearer rule that prevents the loose use of quote boxes (if we protect those, you see, we can know to take other forms of paraphrasing with proper caution), I think Giraffe skirted the existing rule neatly and non-maliciously. The technique he used could be subverted without much modification to jerkish ends, though, and that’s the main quarrel I have with it.
I’m not a particular fan of Giraffe: I am sometimes irritated by his first resort to a smugly facetious “Of course we Mods are arbitrary and wrongheaded” when an actual explanation of a ruling seems like a reasonable expectation (didn’t happen in this thread, by the way). But I don’t see a rule violation, just a need for further clarification of a well-intentioned and necessary policy.
And thanks for your patience, Go You Big Red Fire Engine. I’m a little over-sensitive these days because of real-life stress, which isn’t your fault and shouldn’t be your problem. Apologies.
It is mean to be sarcastic, as well as refer to something off site. He knows what. However, I won’t elaborate, for fear of running afoul of board rules.
Great, Scott Plaid. A confabulated quote, with the misquoted poster’s name in boldface inside the quote box, poorly disclaimed, and content that resembles not a particle of the ostensibly-quoted poster’s original message. Better yet, it’s in furtherance of an off-board quarrel that the original poster did not import here. Scott Plaid, your choices, since you’ve omitted explaining yourself, are to apologize, establish your post’s relevance to the OP, or withdraw and take whatever lumps are doubtless on their way. Hell, Big Red thinks you’ve gone too far, and by the standards of this thread he’s the lenient judge. At least, you may have established part of the line to be drawn around use of quote boxes, and for that service I hope you get your posting privileges back someday soon. Now, I’m anxious to see how flexible the rules are when there’s no room for weighing intent.
My answer would be to tick out my tongue, and make a loud sound.
Now, it could be that I am refering to one of the sites-not-to-be-mention.
However,
It could be that I am talking about something else, such as an exchanging of email, or maybe-
Nah, all this stuff would be again the intent of the rules, anyway.
My real arguement is to say, You don’t like people modifying quotes in certain, rare circumstances such as Giraffe’ s example, Excalibre? Well then, lump it.
If you read my first two posts in this thread, you’ll see where I’ve outlined the rules of quote tags as I understand them. Those rules apply equally to mods and members. And, as I’ve also explained, I believe my post was within those rules. Now, be careful here, because if you use the same level of reading comprehension you’ve shown so far, you’re likely to get yourself into trouble. Don’t just skim those posts and summarize them in a way that fits into your current worldview, e.g. “Giraffe said we can misquote people” or “the mods are stealing my thoughts”. A key phrase to note is “the burden of clarity lies on the person altering the quote”.
I’ll give you that. It was far from my best work.
I believe the word unbendable in this case refers to the specific rule we have about making up words and attributing them to other posters being unbendable, even in a fun thread where you’d have to be pretty stupid to think those were actual quotes. Not that the rules rigidly restrict the quote tags to only exact reproductions of previous statements and nothing else.