Announcement Regarding Posting Rule on Intentional Misquoting of Member Posts

[Idontcare]

WIR WOLLEN DIE JUDEN AUSROTEN.

Not going to happen, sonny boi.

I am a Nazist and PROUD OF IT!

We all know that.

I hate all Jews so very much, the Nazis were right.

Now, that's just disgusting, not unexpected coming from you, but still disgusting.

Community message here folks, this kind of intentional misquoting and misattributed quotes to an individual will be treated as actionable and sanctioned from here out.

If anyone chooses to quote another individual and alter their post in any way then they need to be aware that it is up to the person being quoted as to whether or not they take offense to the edits done to their quote (within limits of moderator discretion).

We are going to deal with this from the victim's standpoint, its not about what you meant or intended when you edited their quoted post, it will be all about how the person who's post was misquoted feels about you misquoting them.

So think twice before crafting your next witty inflammatory insulting misquote.

Anyone who feels they are a victim of misquoting needs to report the post in question by clicking the "report post" icon that looks like this:

Fill out the comment box.

Do NOT respond in public, do not post to say you reported it, do not report it and then post in public with some witty retort that only serves to inflame the situation.

Report the post and leave the matter to the moderators.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[MotF Bane]

For a little personal clarification, let's say this happens:

Continental makes the best tires.

Poster 2 comes along, and posts the following:

Dunlop makes the best tires.

ffy

Caveat: this is not an ATG example, this is just the first idea that comes to my mind for subject. Obviously, Conti and Dunlop are two manufacturers of tires. Obviously, it isn't designed in any way to be insulting to poster 1.

1) Is that sort of a change also "actionable"?
2) Is the moderator reaction to it solely governed by whether poster 1 is upset and reports the post? Or can the moderators actively prosecute these sorts of edits on their own?

Thanks.

 

[silverpig]

For a little personal clarification, let's say this happens:

*snip*

Probably just use your common sense. If someone gets butthurt over something not inflammatory like that and you get called out, chalk it up to life not being fair. If you're putting racist and inflammatory words in someone else's mouth, you're probably going to be cited for it.

That being said, don't report me bro.

 

[dank69]

For a little personal clarification, let's say this happens:



Poster 2 comes along, and posts the following:



Caveat: this is not an ATG example, this is just the first idea that comes to my mind for subject. Obviously, Conti and Dunlop are two manufacturers of tires. Obviously, it isn't designed in any way to be insulting to poster 1.

1) Is that sort of a change also "actionable"?
2) Is the moderator reaction to it solely governed by whether poster 1 is upset and reports the post? Or can the moderators actively prosecute these sorts of edits on their own?

Thanks.

FFY implies that the quote was edited.

 

[JSt0rm]

I think in the world of the internet changing someones quote and then putting fixed is ok.

Ive had people change my quotes without a fixed and then proceed to argue against my "point"

THAT shouldnt be allowed.

 

[Whiskey16]

FFY implies that the quote was edited.

It leaves it up to the onus upon the reader rather than the presenter to determine what specifics have been altered and what the original was. That is unfair to the one who was misquoted.

FFY should only be tolerated if the presenter retains the original unaltered text in their presentation, and only then may they ADD their argumentative changes.

That's quite a simple expectation to retain honesty.

 

[cybrsage]

I think we should be able to change personal attacks and cursing to more acceptable things, though. When someone says "you are a fucking retard", I should be able to change it to "I wish I was you with all my heart and soul".

 

[Idontcare]

For a little personal clarification, let's say this happens:

Continental makes the best tires.

Poster 2 comes along, and posts the following:

Dunlop makes the best tires.

ffy

Caveat: this is not an ATG example, this is just the first idea that comes to my mind for subject. Obviously, Conti and Dunlop are two manufacturers of tires. Obviously, it isn't designed in any way to be insulting to poster 1.

1) Is that sort of a change also "actionable"?
2) Is the moderator reaction to it solely governed by whether poster 1 is upset and reports the post? Or can the moderators actively prosecute these sorts of edits on their own?

Thanks.

For now it will be up to Poster 1 to decide for themselves if they are offended for changes made in their post, within limits which include convincing the moderator that their grievance is reasonable.

If you don't know Poster 1 well enough to know they won't be offended by your "FTFY" quote alteration then you are better off just not doing a "FTFY" type response given the fact it is very easy to reply to Poster 1 with the response you intended to communicate all along:

Continental makes the best tires.

Dunlop makes the best tires.

This will cut down immediately on the "I'm misunderstood" claims of the individuals who are altering the quotes in question.

Just to reiterate, mods will not be actively canvassing the forum for misquotes to sanction. This is merely a pro-active matter for the poster in question and only the poster in question can take issue with it.

Poster 3 cannot enter the equation on behalf of poster 1. Poster 1 may find the FTFY quote to be in good spirit and perfectly fine in which case it is a "No harm no foul" outcome.

But if Poster 2 and Poster 1 are less than chummy, then Poster 2 invites risk upon themselves by misquoting Poster 1 should (1) Poster 1 take offense to such misquoting, (2) Poster 1 reports the post through the formal channels, and (3) the moderator agrees that Poster 1 has reasonable grounds to take offense to the specifics of the misquote itself (no frivolous sanctions on technicalities or so on will be allowed).

Each reported instance will be handled on a case-by-case. And Poster 2 can appeal their sanction in the Moderator Discussion subforum as a means to further ensure point #3 above is observed.

The purpose here is not to eliminate the jovial nature and utility of the FTFY meme. This is not intended to put a damper on "snipping" text in reducing the text-block which is quoted (provided it is not being done in a way that is easily interpreted as a misquote).

Rather, the purpose here is to eliminate the employment of that meme in the pursuit of unproductive character attacks and intentionally harmful mischaracterizations as showcased in the OP of this thread.

Since it is Poster 2 who is doing the misquoting, the onus of prudence and responsible misquoting is on that poster's shoulders. Caution is theirs to take, or not, when crafting a FTFY type post, but Poster 1 is the only to say if it is a problem or not.

Easy way to avoid it would be to avoid misquoting. Next easiest is to make sure you are chummy with the person you are misquoting and restrict your misquoting activities to those folks for whom you are confident they will receive your misquoting of them in good spirits.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[Jadow]

I would recommend either banning misquoting all together or leave it alone .

this gray area have it both ways approach seems lame

 

[monovillage]

I would recommend either banning misquoting all together or leave it alone .

this gray area have it both ways approach seems lame

I disagree, while i'm no fan of the FTFY, zsdersw used it very effectively on me today to point out one of my biases. It's that type of humor and clever thinking that makes me a fan of ATP&N.

 

[JEDIYoda]

this gray area have it both ways approach seems lame

There is no grey area if it is done the way the mod said --

Originally Posted by Poster 2
Quote: Originally Posted by Poster 1
Continental makes the best tires.

Dunlop makes the best tires.

 

[cybrsage]

Next easiest is to make sure you are chummy with the person you are misquoting and restrict your misquoting activities to those folks for whom you are confident they will receive your misquoting of them in good spirits.

So it will be fine if I misquote Perknose.


Come on, you laughed.


EDIT: Well, maybe a slight chuckle and a wry grin...

 

[Idontcare]

I would recommend either banning misquoting all together or leave it alone .

this gray area have it both ways approach seems lame

Kinda like profanity then?

 

[janas19]

For now it will be up to Poster 1 to decide for themselves if they are offended for changes made in their post, within limits which include convincing the moderator that their grievance is reasonable.

If you don't know Poster 1 well enough to know they won't be offended by your "FTFY" quote alteration then you are better off just not doing a "FTFY" type response given the fact it is very easy to reply to Poster 1 with the response you intended to communicate all along:


This will cut down immediately on the "I'm misunderstood" claims of the individuals who are altering the quotes in question.

Just to reiterate, mods will not be actively canvassing the forum for misquotes to sanction. This is merely a pro-active matter for the poster in question and only the poster in question can take issue with it.

Poster 3 cannot enter the equation on behalf of poster 1. Poster 1 may find the FTFY quote to be in good spirit and perfectly fine in which case it is a "No harm no foul" outcome.

But if Poster 2 and Poster 1 are less than chummy, then Poster 2 invites risk upon themselves by misquoting Poster 1 should (1) Poster 1 take offense to such misquoting, (2) Poster 1 reports the post through the formal channels, and (3) the moderator agrees that Poster 1 has reasonable grounds to take offense to the specifics of the misquote itself (no frivolous sanctions on technicalities or so on will be allowed).

Each reported instance will be handled on a case-by-case. And Poster 2 can appeal their sanction in the Moderator Discussion subforum as a means to further ensure point #3 above is observed.

The purpose here is not to eliminate the jovial nature and utility of the FTFY meme. This is not intended to put a damper on "snipping" text in reducing the text-block which is quoted (provided it is not being done in a way that is easily interpreted as a misquote).

Rather, the purpose here is to eliminate the employment of that meme in the pursuit of unproductive character attacks and intentionally harmful mischaracterizations as showcased in the OP of this thread.

Since it is Poster 2 who is doing the misquoting, the onus of prudence and responsible misquoting is on that poster's shoulders. Caution is theirs to take, or not, when crafting a FTFY type post, but Poster 1 is the only to say if it is a problem or not.

Easy way to avoid it would be to avoid misquoting. Next easiest is to make sure you are chummy with the person you are misquoting and restrict your misquoting activities to those folks for whom you are confident they will receive your misquoting of them in good spirits.

Administrator Idontcare

Personally I support it. Sure, there are going to be gray areas. But on the whole, it's good to be proactive and nip it in the bud.

:thumbup:

 

[JEDIYoda]

Kinda like profanity then?

actually unlike your example of a proper misquote --
JediYoda -- fried Anchovies are Best.
JediSithLord --- Fried Froglegs are Best.
corrected for accuracy sake


There is noway you properly cuss.....then add a disclaimer
or after your tirade -- I was just joking..lol

%^$^%$^% &(*^(^)( )((**&^ -- opps I was just joking..hehehe

 

[MotF Bane]

The purpose here is not to eliminate the jovial nature and utility of the FTFY meme.

Administrator Idontcare

That was my primary concern.

Thanks for the clarification/expansion.

 

[NoStateofMind]

nvm

 

[PokerGuy]

I don't like the approach of it being a matter of how the misquoted person "feels" about it. Nobody can read minds, so you simply don't know how someone's going to feel about something, it just opens the door to a bunch of whiners. I understand that thems the rules and all that, just saying going by what someone may or may not feel about something that gets posted is misguided at best. The rules are the rules, they shouldn't change depending on how someone feels about something.

As long as the post makes it clear that the poster has changed someone else's post (ie, FTFY or something like that), it shouldn't matter what the original poster thinks about it, it's clear to the reader who actually makes the statement, so there's no "putting words in my mouth" stuff going on.

 

[dank69]

I think we should be able to change personal attacks and cursing to more acceptable things, though. When someone says "you are a fucking retard", I should be able to change it to "I wish I was you with all my heart and soul".

You are descibing an infraction worthy activity.

 

[cybrsage]

You are descibing an infraction worthy activity.

Yeah, but it is fun to FIFY for them to turn it into something not infraction worthy. However, doing such would mean they could no longer receive an infraction for the original post.

 

[Bowfinger]

You are descibing an infraction worthy activity.

I hope so. It's not only dishonest, often abused to dodge valid criticisms, but it's also quite inflammatory and encourages escalating attacks.

 

[dank69]

Yeah, but it is fun to FIFY for them to turn it into something not infraction worthy. However, doing such would mean they could no longer receive an infraction for the original post.

Your reply here would be totally logical if you could edit other people's posts and not just your quote of their posts. However, we cannot do that so...

 

[dank69]

I hope so. It's not only dishonest, often abused to dodge valid criticisms, but it's also quite inflammatory and encourages escalating attacks.

Absolutely. Cybrsage alone would have many, many infractions at this point and probably a few vacations as well.

 

[cybrsage]

Absolutely. Cybrsage alone would have many, many infractions at this point and probably a few vacations as well.

As would a host of others, youself included. But you knew that, right?

it's also quite inflammatory and encourages escalating attacks.

The person posting the original inflammatory attack already escalated the attack to the point of showing idiocy. Making fun of someone who is already frothing at the mouth is fun...it raises their already high blood pressure even more.

 

[Bowfinger]

Absolutely. Cybrsage alone would have many, many infractions at this point and probably a few vacations as well.

Indeed. He is far and away the worst offender, at least in recent history.