We’re revising the rule about quoting other users. The revision aligns the written rule with current mod practice and is not a major departure.
Here’s the revised rule:
Falsely attributing a quote to another SDMB user, or modifying another’s post in order to cast him/her in a bad light, is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges. We allow parody quotes under certain conditions. Here are the permissible options:
a. Quote attributed to real SDMB user. Quote must be accurate, whether displayed using
tags or ordinary quotation marks. Normal editorial rules apply: that is, you may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” or devices such as [snip]. You may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may not add editorial comments or edit a quote so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the
tags or quotation marks. This applies to all forums including the Pit.
b. Unattributed quote (no name). Unattributed parody quotes are permitted in all forums provided they don’t violate other SDMB rules.
c. Parody attribution. In the Pit only, quotes (including parody quotes) may be attributed to a parody username, provided that (a) the parody username is obviously satirical - we’ll be the judge of obviousness; and (b) no other rules are violated. Quotes attributed to parody usernames are not permitted in other forums.
The mods don’t routinely check quotes for accuracy. If you see a violation of the above rules, please report it.
The above rules apply to quotes of SDMB users only. We encourage accurate quoting of off-board individuals in a serious discussion; links are recommended. If it becomes apparent you’re derailing a discussion with fake or misleading quotes of off-board individuals, we reserve the right to take action.
Noted, and thanks to Ed and all the moderators for the time, effort and discussion you’ve put in to weigh this issue, come to a consensus and arrive at a conclusion intended to best serve the board. It would have been easy and less work for you both now and in the future to just declare changing user names in the Pit verboten and be done with it. I think the effort you’ve put in exemplifies Spice Weasel’sobservation that behind the scenes you are more impartial, reasonable and fair than many give you credit for. Kudos all around.
Edit: also forgive me for responding to a post about not changing quoted text by changing the quoted text: without my edits below, your use of the bracketed word QUOTE complete fucks up the formatting.
So, two things:
How strict are you planning to be with the quotation marks thing? I can easily see someone posting something like this:
If I didn’t say the words in quotes, is that going to merit a warning or note? Or is this sort of paraphrase-using-quote-marks going to be allowed still? I think I see it a lot, without being noted, so this would be a change, IMO.
2) I got a (reversed) warning awhile ago for replacing a pronoun with words in brackets that I believed (and the poster agreed) were an accurate summary of the pronoun’s antecedent. You mentioned above that brackets should be used to add, not replace, words in a post. Will replacing words with brackets merit mod action? That seems reasonable to me, but I hope you’ll be understanding with folks who miss this nuance, as often brackets are used for replacement, not simple addition.
I’m not super-clear on this. If someone responds outside of the pit to some dumbass thing I say with a post including this quote:
is that actionable? Or is that something different from a parody quote?
I would certainly sanction that in Great Debates or Elections.
Or, to make clear to all, we ain’t gonna put up with any shilly-shallying inside the quote boxes in GD and Elections. You may only edit out parts of quotes and bold quotes provided you announce that you have done so.
Your clarification uses the single most ambiguous verb in the English language. But I think I got what you mean.
Wait, what? If I quote only part of what someone says, but I don’t announce I’ve done so, that’s a problem? We’re gonna have to turn into a board full of doorhinges? I really hope I’m misunderstanding you.
Best practices indicate that posters should indicate where they’ve altered text inside a quote box. Not everyone does that, I’m aware, and we take such things into account. But the bald rule states that such should be indicated by the poster making the quote box. To not do so is to potentially open oneself to accusations of making changes and altering the meaning.
Indicating bolding, okay. But quoting parts of posts to respond to strikes me as best practice, as long as it’s done in good faith–and if it’s not, generally the person being quoted points that out quickly. I’d hope that mods would only get involved in egregious cases, and in those cases treating it as a jerk move, not establishing a new rule.
Now, just want to be 100% clear. Assume all of the follow examples are in the Pit. What would, and would not, be a rules violation?
[Original post, quote link is to a random thread:]
[quote="Bozo the Clown, post:27, topic:536106"]
LOL! Espresso users are so [del]lame[/del] cool!
[quote="Bozo the Clown, post:27, topic:536106"]
LOL! Espresso users are so [del]lame[/del] pathetic!
[quote="Bozo the Cluck, post:27, topic:536106"]
LOL! Espresso users are so lame!
You are a sad excuse for a clown.
LOL! Espresso users are so [del]lame[/del] suave!
"LOL! Espresso users are so [del]lame[/del] sublime!"
There isn’t any intention to change treatment of quotation marks. The usage you use above for things like paraphrasing, etc. are apparent in context.
If someone were to say: You said, and I quote: “I am a poopy pants!”
Where you did not in fact say that you were a poopy pants, I’d say that’s kinda jerky. Hardly anyone ever runs afoul of the rule that isn’t using the HTML quote boxes - but people are quite creative so of course, context matters.
I appreciate the amount of time and discussion it took to get a consensus on this issue. Since I was among the people who asked for the clarification, I thank Ed Zotti and the moderating staff for giving the issue their attention.
The moderators and administrative staff don’t get nearly as many kudos as they deserve. It’s like firefighters/police/teachers, etc; if they do the job well, no one says anything. If something gets screwed up, however, it’s all over the media.