Start by explaining just WTF an “espresso user” is.
They can quit any time they want.
It’s still a change. Problem is, while unattributed quote boxes are well-defined
unattributed quotation marks are not. In the normal world, clearly indicated parody would not count as an actual attribution. But it is unclear if this is the case here. I know that “FTFY” posts are treated as actual attributions, even though that abbreviation clearly indicates that the person did not say what is being quoted.
In practice, I don’t use very many parody quotes, so it won’t really affect me. But I am interested in what exactly counts as an attribution for quotation marks. I am glad, for example, that obviously paraphrased quotes do not count. I know what my common sense would say, but mine has always been different than the mods’.
I don’t expect the mods to be able to necessarily articulate everything all at once. Watching how they moderate will be instructive. I presume that mod notes will continue to be used in all but the most egregious cases, so it shouldn’t be hard to observe in practice. without worry of accidentally crossing the line.
Then I humbly suggest the written rule reflect that.
Right now, the rule is about other users:
Part a. is a specification of the “rule about quoting other users”.
Perhaps the intended rule is:
Looks good to me, though I’d like to see it extended: if you’re quoting, you’re quoting and the same rules should apply to quoting non-Dopers as to Dopers.
This is what we get when we hire the last copy-editor in the world …
This sort of thing, I’m guessing:
Two things should be kept in mind. First, we don’t routinely scrutinize quotes; mainly we respond to complaints. Second, in this as in all things, we try to use common sense. We recognize that quotation marks are often used casually, and that sometimes a quoted expression is actually just a paraphrase. What I had in mind here was an extended quotation to which the poster is responding. The fact that quotation marks are used rather than a quote box shouldn’t be construed as license to misquote someone. That said, if in practice extending the rule to quotation marks proves too confusing, we may restrict it to quote boxes only.
This part of the rule wasn’t changed. Again, common sense will be the guide. Bracketed insertions should serve to clarify, not change the meaning.
Thanks for the clarification, Ed. Extending the strict rule to quotation marks had concerned me, too, because it’s quite common to use them to paraphrase in good faith in order to get to the perceived core of an argument. It shouldn’t be a transgression to say something like {quote} Your “I don’t care” attitude is what I’m addressing here {unquote} which is pretty clearly paraphrasing the understanding of a message rather than implying that the person actually said those exact words.*
People often object to their comments being paraphrased on the grounds that the paraphrase isn’t accurate, and IMHO that’s just the normal course of debate. It shouldn’t be grounds for complaints and sanctions just because it’s within quotation marks if it’s done in good faith and isn’t an obvious attempt to misrepresent their actual words. I think we all agree that quote boxes themselves are different, and must not be altered except within the stated editorial rules.
–
- Or maybe a better example:
[Quote box containing an actual quote.]
ISTM that what this really means is “xxxxxxx”.
Thanks for these clarifications. I found myself alarmed by this post, but if the intent is to keep things basically the same as it’s been–and especially if any changes will be done via notes and not warnings wherever it’s reasonable to do so–then I’m less concerned.
Just a few thoughts. Reading this and the parallel thread there, it looked as if there were some issues with the precise wording, but going back and reading them - they are a masterpiece of conciseness. They do actually accurately capture the constraints - even though you need to read them carefully.
However I think there is some value in decoupling the initial sentence about grounds for revocation of posting privileges from the rest, as they serve two different purposes. The rules about how to quote properly, are ones of style and politeness (and not being a jerk.) They belong with other rules about content and conduct.
That is a separate problem to deliberate bad behaviour in misquoting or attributing something with the intent to cast someone in a bad light.
One notes currently it would appear that misquoting or attributing to make them appear in a better light is OK. However it clearly falls afoul of the general rules on content of quotations - just not grounds for revocation of privileges. Currently with the two aspects of the rules running into one another it appears that the rules for quotations are a subsection of the rule about misattribution being grounds for revocation. They sort of are, but they don’t really belong there. The manner in which the first part of the rule talks about other SDMB users, where the rules of quoted content implicitly refer to any SDMB user mask the element of the rules of quoting also referring to quoting one’s self.
Really this is minor nit picking in the extreme - but I can’t sleep - so my 2 cents worth.
I agree it should be acceptable if done in good faith. However, IME it’s pretty common for people to snip posts in a way that allows them to pretend that the quoted post has a certain meaning that they prefer to impute, and which would have been difficult if not impossible had they quoted more completely.
“FTFY”?
“Fixed That For You”
It was a lame joke, and I never explain jokes, lame or not.