Somebody say something? Who was that?
Yeah, yeah, I know. I’m an offender of this aspect of etiquette—if that’s what it is. Gripe noted. I’ll try to remember to do this since it seems to irk so many of ya.
Another reason to attribute the quote is that often one will want the quoted posted to return the argument; attribution highlights that you are addressing specifically THEIR argument (not that anyone on the board would actually be dumb enough to completely forget what they posted the previous day, would they?..would they???)
Well, I can forget where I posted…
I always attribute a quote out of respect for the author as well as the readership. When others do not acknowledge the authorship of my quoted words I feel slightly slighted.
Huh. And I’m partially partial to not cluttering up quotes with it.
I’ve done this. In most cases, I’m not even paying attention to who said what I’m replying to. I’m responding to the words themselves, not the person. I always type the quote tags myself; it’s much quicker than using the quote function in most cases.
That said, I didn’t realize that this annoyed some people, so I’ll endeavor to be more vigilant about attribution in my subsequent correspondence.
Well, I hate to come right out and cop to the following, but now seems to be the time.
More and more lately, especially in very long threads that have many side conversations going, I will open the page and simply do a find on the page for my name to see if I need to respond to anyone. So if something is not properly attributed to me, I may very well miss your cogent comment to me about it.
I know, I should be punished.
I think there are good points on both sides. A quote should be attributed for a variety of reasons, but in Great Debates especially, a response ought to address and argument and not a person. So, I think what I’ll do is attribute the quote, and then make sure that my response itself addresses the argument only. Something like this:
Username wrote:
That argument is an affirmation of the consequent, a logical fallacy.
Stand in line, Stoid. 
disagree…
why?
its easier to copy a portion of the text and do a “ctrl+f” to find what you are looking for. its only in threads with MANY pages where the quoter might help by stating which page his/her quote is from.
"do you not know that when a politician writes, he begins with the names of his approvers? " (Plato, Phaedrus)
deliberate effort…make it harder…saving a single line…
boy! you are keen on making assumptions!
stoid: this, on the other hand is a “reason” one should at least address a sentance to whom it is intended for…
but, what you might fail to recognize is the “general” chat of the thread…someone might be replying to your messages without directly addressing you.
some people read so many threads in such a short amount of time that it is no wonder they forget where, who and why someone said something that migth be worth quoting. then when they find the quote the do not trust the quoter to correctly attribute the quote to a given context (the quoters context) and really must find the original text to verify it themselves.
they (the quotefinders) often fail to recognize the context the quoter is aiming at because, even if the quote completely voids the original text, it may be the quoters intent! not to confuse…but rather to get a different perspective.
the thing is that you CAN NOT pass judgements on the quoters words in relations with his quote in context with the meaning of the quoted text…only the quoted text itself and the reply the quoter attributes to it is relevant.
otherwise you might fail to recognize the quoters intent and make a fool out of yourself…
bj0rn - …
Well…
In a real debate, it’s important to keep everything straight, so everyone knows who’s being talked to. When you get a post that’s five pages long and addresses seven different people, it can get confusing.
But if I’m in MPSIMS or IMHO, and I’m just responding to a random, silly comment, I’m not gonna bother attributing it. I’m someone who doesn’t use the Quote button (I prefer typing the tags manually), and sometimes, you get someone who has a funky name.
Awww, jeez guys, look what you did. You summoned bj0rn.
How’s it going on the island, bj0rn?
guys, what guys!?!
bj0rn - …
Excuse me, I just like posting in bj0rn threads.
Howdy-ho bj0rn.
And tell me - surely you don’t really think that the fact that someone can copy a stream of text, do a ctrl-f to find it, scroll up to check who it was that said it and then scroll all the way back to the bottom again… breath… means that it isn’t necessary to attribute the damn quote? You’re just joshing us, right?
pan
There’s a really good reason not to attribute outside the quoted block Lib; see what has happened to the above; when I quoted your post, the software drops (what would become) nested quotes and it now looks like you were saying that Username was the one saying “That argument is an affirmation of the consequent, a logical fallacy.”, whereas that was in fact your reply to Username.
well…from the op:
[quote]
where there are lengthy exchanges back and forth, it is of paramount importance that one understand the specific context in which a statement was made, and this is heavily dependent on the statements that it in turn referred to.[/qoute]
so…if someone is really looking for the original statement to make sure the context of the quote remains true to the statement in question…then ctrl+f is what you should want to do.
so, no…i am not “joshing” (should i properly quote and attribute that?) you…and yes, it means that attributing a quote with a name is not needed (given the reason the op wants to attribute quotes).
generally, on the other hand. quotes are attributed with names, titles, publishers etc…simply to make it possible for the reader of the quote to locate the text the quote originated from…something that should not be a problem within a given thred.
the only exception might be the many pages problem i mentioned earlier. but that alone is less of a problem that simply attributing the quote with a name because it doesnt give you a hell of alot to work with in the first place…
imagine a long post you have to skim through to find the blasted quote compared to simply ctrl+f - ing it…
anyways, if you are so keen on attributing quotes, what you should really be demanding are links, right?
bj0rn - …
I have been very guilty of this, probably because this is my first message board ever, and I’m not very well versed in vB coding or etiquette. However, I don’t think TwistofFate’s question is so very relevant. What is relevant is knowing that it bothers a fair number of people. Armed with that knowledge, I’ll thank you all for pointing out the error of my ways, and try to clean up my act.
is it justifiable that everybody have to do what a “fair number of people” think we should do? (lets not get lost in a discussion about the “qualities” of democracy).
the people that do not attribute a quote with a name have their reasons for not doing it, and i bet they want to be attributed with the title “fair number of people” too…
an example:
Terry Pratchett…if you have read any of his books you should know that he rarely attributes the sentances of a dialogue to characters…only rarely he inserts the name of the speaker so the reader isnt carried to far into the confusion of nonlabeled sentances. (notice how this last sentance can work in support of both attributing sentances with names and not).
anyway, what could be the “correct” way of handling this dilemma so that everybody can be in agreement with the logic of the “rule”?
(not in order of importance)
the advantage of attributing a quote:
- knowing which poster made the statement makes it a lot easier to understand which exchange the statement was a part of, which points it was intended to address, and what it actually meant.
- there’s a quote tag and people should just bloody use it if they want their post to be read and understood.
- If you want him or her to respond to your arguments, address them by name!
- there is a quote button
- but it’s much more helpful to know exactly who said what, particularly as lack of self-consistency is one of the attibutes of a poorly thought-out POV.
- If i’m taking an active part in what i consider to be a serious debate, or i want to specifically argue for or against someone’s postion, then i always attribute the quote.
- I’ll try to remember to do this since it seems to irk so many of ya.
- Another reason to attribute the quote is that often one will want the quoted posted to return the argument; attribution highlights that you are addressing specifically THEIR argument.
- I always attribute a quote out of respect for the author as well as the readership.
- I will open the page and simply do a find on the page for my name to see if I need to respond to anyone. So if something is not properly attributed to me, I may very well miss your cogent comment to me about it.
- its etiquette
- generally, on the other hand. quotes are attributed with names, titles, publishers etc…simply to make it possible for the reader of the quote to locate the text the quote originated from…
the advantage of NOT attributing a quote:
- if the reply is relevant to the quote in a discussion, should it be necessary to specify who?
- Please learn to use the
[quote]
function, people. (attribute isnt a default like it is with the quote button)
3. sometimes I want to be sure my response is an attack on a position, not on a poster. So I don’t include the name.
4. It’s faster
5. I read all the posts so I either recognize who said it or remember the context.
6. If, on the hand, i’m making a flippant or throwaway comment that is just intended to be humorous or annoying, and that doesn’t really contribute much to the broader debate, i tend to leave out the attribution.
7. Huh. And I’m partially partial to not cluttering up quotes with it. (says the one that attributed a quote to brienspace…;))
8. I’m responding to the words themselves, not the person. (similar to attack a position)
9. its easier to copy a portion of the text and do a “ctrl+f” to find what you are looking for. (than searching for the username)
10. only the quoted text itself and the reply the quoter attributes to it is relevant.
11. Awww, jeez guys, look what you did. You summoned bj0rn. (;))
12. generally, on the other hand. quotes are attributed with names, titles, publishers etc…simply to make it possible for the reader of the quote to locate the text the quote originated from…something that should not be a problem within a given thred. (thread…)
surely there are more advantates that are supposed to support both viewpoints, but this is where we are at at the moment (if i have done this properly).
there are two major viewpoints here:
- if you dont attribute a quote you fail to recognize the authors right to respect for his work
- by not attributing a quote you are in less risk of attacking the person rather than his position
this seems to me to be a conflict of interests between
1.
etiquette:
“n: rules governing socially acceptable behavior”
and
considerate
“considerate: Having or marked by regard for the needs or feelings of others.” (regardless of what is socially accetable…?)
“sometimes I want to be sure my response is an attack on a position, not on a poster. So I don’t include the name.”
and
“I’ll try to remember to do this since it seems to irk so many of ya.”
lets agree that it is “socially acceptable” to properly attribute a quote, even though this particular etiquette might not extend to:
as opposed to:
(parenthesis added by me)
this is propably the reason why posters who quote from threads outside the given topic make links…to make it POSSIBLE for readers to find the original text…when on the other hand the original text can be located within the current thread its is more than possible to find the original text and EASIER to do it by simply doing a ctrl+f rather than scrolling for the username the quote was attributed to…
the same is should be true for quotes outside of the current thread if you have the link available…
i want to assume that people get “irked” with the lack of quotes because they are used to seeing quotes attributed and think its the right thing to do rather a means to a purpose (the purpose referred to is the POSSIBILITY of accessing the original text) <- hope this makes any sense -> (this is a battle between habit and why the habit was formed).
conclusion:
attributes to quotes should only be NEEDED when access to the given original text is restricted in some way to make it POSSIBLE for the reader to access it.
attributes to quotes where access to the given original text is easy (via a link or within the current thread) does not make the original text any easier to find (the purpose of the quoting etiquette) and thus should NOT be needed.
there are rules to protect authorship of documents and other stuff…
from the SDMB registration aggreement (which we must all abide):
so, if you are quoting copyright material…please attribute…no, attribute your quotes!
if not, do what you want to and dont bitch about people that do not practice your habits!
bj0rn - …
doh…messed up there!!!
bj0rn - sorry
Well I for one would like to say that Bj0rn has made a bloody good case for not needing the attributation, as well as summarising well the reasons why one might argue that you do need it. Well done to him.
In particular I take the point about context. You’re saying that if you can’t remember who said it then there is a good argument that you should really refresh your memory about the whole debate made by that individual anyway. And to do that you may has well search on the quoted text as on a name.
I can’t really argue with that.
I still think that it is a courtesy to the person saying something to include the attributation though.
pan