Announcement Regarding Posting Rule on Intentional Misquoting of Member Posts

[Londo_Jowo]

Idontcare,
Thanks for taking action in this matter. I normally don't mind the FTFY type quotes but these quotes were over the line.

 

[Idontcare]

Idontcare,
Thanks for taking action in this matter. I normally don't mind the FTFY type quotes but these quotes were over the line.

Enough people have expressed an issue with it for me to recognize something needed to be immediately done.

We'll keep this rule in place for 3 months. After 3 months have passed then we'll have a community vote on whether or not to keep it.

Kind of like what we did in VC&G.

 

[NoStateofMind]

P&N with kid gloves. This should make for some busy mods. This whole "I feel offended" from a quote is BS IMO. Obviously this is the direction the mods want to go and so it will be. Be prepared for a plethora of butt hurt forum goers complaining to the powers that be that someone offended them. I guess since "in god we trust" on our currency is offensive to some I shouldnt be surprised to see such a progressive move trying to protect "feelings" on an Internet forum. Hope this post didn't hurt yours.

 

[lothar]

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

Regarding the Dunlop/Continental tire issue, how exactly can someone prove that their grievance is reasonable to a Mod? Can you post an example of a grievance that you would call or consider reasonable in this particular case(assuming that you were Poster 1)?

I can see if this was a politics/religion/nazi/and other sensitive issues...In those case, then yes.

But something as simple as Dunlop vs. Continental tires should not get someone banned/infracted regardless of whatever basis Poster 1 thinks.
I don't see how something as simple as this can be qualified as harmful and worthy of being actionable under any scenario of grievance.

In that regard, I agree with Moderator actions taken on JohnofSheffield on this particular matter.
His comments were completely inflammatory and he was proven to be a complete liar at that regarding his service in the SAS.

Just make sure you guys keep a light touch on that.
Your comments on so far has been mostly reassuring but it still left me with unanswered questions.

 

[Idontcare]

Regarding the Dunlop/Continental tire issue, how exactly can someone prove that their grievance is reasonable to a Mod?

Poster 1 would report the post which contains them being attributed with a misquote.

A moderator reviews the reported post queue, observes Poster 1's reported post and proceeds to investigate.

If the moderator is not convinced that the insult/grievance is self-evident then they will pm Poster 1 and ask the poster to expand on their reasoning why they perceive the misquote as an insult.

This portion of the "due process" phase may include taking counsel with fellow moderators to get a wider opinion, as well as engaging Poster 2 in pm's to gain their side of the story.

If the moderator is convinced that action is required then they will take appropriate action which will depend on Poster 2's history.

A poster who has never violated the "no misquote" rule will likely just get a friendly pm from the mod asking them to edit their post and change it back to the original quote. A poster who has violated the "no misquotes" rule 6 or 7 times is probably going to get a short vacation since the warnings just aren't working.

It follows the standard due process flow chart for dispositioning reported posts.

 

[sandorski]

FTFY implies that the quote was edited.

FTFY, and Motf as well, sort of indirectly.

 

[dank69]

FTFMotf as I realize you were just quoting the way he used it.

FTFY caps

 

[cybrsage]

FTFY caps

Reported...

 

[Idontcare]

Reported...

dank69 is hereby permabanned.

We will not tolerate the intolerant.


:hmm:

 

[dank69]

dank69 is hereby permabanned.

We will not tolerate the intolerant.


:hmm:

D:

 

[Infohawk]

Question for mods: If misquoting is is against the rules, is wholesale misrepresentation against the rules? E.g., "Poster X supports candidate Alpha" when there's no evidence of that whatsoever.

 

[Idontcare]

Question for mods: If misquoting is is against the rules, is wholesale misrepresentation against the rules? E.g., "Poster X supports candidate Alpha" when there's no evidence of that whatsoever.

That would fall under "intellectual dishonesty", if it is not true then it needs to be corrected.

I would expect Poster X to at least attempt to correct the misunderstanding.

Failing success in that effort, then yes, escalating the issue to the attention of a moderator by way of reporting the post would be the next action to take.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That would fall under "intellectual dishonesty", if it is not true then it needs to be corrected.

I would expect Poster X to at least attempt to correct the misunderstanding.

Failing success in that effort, then yes, escalating the issue to the attention of a moderator by way of reporting the post would be the next action to take.

Intellectual dishonesty is reportable?!? You guys are going to be busy!

 

[DrPizza]

Intellectual dishonesty is reportable?!? You guys are going to be busy! even busier!

Fixed that for you, and proposed a possible idea for the FTFY meme that might be a little more workable without people getting butt-hurt. What do you guys think?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Fixed that for you, and proposed a possible idea for the FTFY meme that might be a little more workable without people getting butt-hurt. What do you guys think?

You're reported! :biggrin:

 

[SilentRunning]

Fixed that for you, and proposed a possible idea for the FTFY meme that might be a little more workable without people getting butt-hurt(1.). What do you guys(2.) think?

1. burnt by the end of a cigar
2. internet gurus


This avoids misquoting while getting the point/insult/satire across.

Now if only i could get superscript to work.

 

[ericlp]

man... I think it's time to find a new forum. The noobs are destroying it. I have a suggestion. Why doesn't the mod that wants to change everything get all the rules and regulations together in one big post and have like a holy 10 commandment BS fuck fest... That way everyone can feel really good on accomplishing something...

 

[cybrsage]

man... I think it's time to find a new forum...

Bye

 

[shortylickens]

I;m sorry I no understand.

Is this ONLY for P&N? Or the rest of the Social area?
Or the whole forums?

 

[shira]

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.

Except that your own typical MO is NOT to "clean up" someone else's post. No, what you do is take a post that shows that you're a moron and change the words to make it appear that the poster was the moron. In other words, your sole purpose is to play games in a desperate attempt to make yourself look better than you actually are.

 

[shira]

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".

Calling someone a "fvcking retard" (FR) is perfectly acceptable if in fact the target of the invective has just revealed themselves to be a FR. A person is a self-evident FR if they (a) demonstrate an obvious deficiency in intellectual honesty combined with (b) obvious trolling behavior intended to evade owning up to their dishonesty.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Calling someone a "fvcking retard" (FR) is perfectly acceptable if in fact the target of the invective has just revealed themselves to be a FR. A person is a self-evident FR if they (a) demonstrate an obvious deficiency in intellectual honesty combined with (b) obvious trolling behavior intended to evade owning up to their dishonesty.

That would be a personal attack....how is that acceptable??

 

[cybrsage]

Except that your own typical MO is NOT to "clean up" someone else's post. No, what you do is take a post that shows that you're a moron and change the words to make it appear that the poster was the moron. In other words, your sole purpose is to play games in a desperate attempt to make yourself look better than you actually are.

I only do it when the poster actually IS being a moron. However, I have stopped doing it even though the posters have not stopped being morons.

 

[shira]

That would be a personal attack....how is that acceptable??

Context is everything, and my observation is that the mods use their discretion in most situations. What I'm saying is that if someone is deserving of the label "fvcking moron," then the mods will probably recognize that this is an exceptional situation and give it a pass. On the other hand, if someone merely makes an extreme statement that another person disagrees with vehemently, then "fvcking moron" is clearly over the line.

 

[cybrsage]

In order for the phrase fckng moron to be used correctly, the person using it must know both the IQ of the poster and whether the poster is sexually active or not. If either of these items are not known (within a reasonable doubt), the person using the phrase is most likely simply performing a personal attack.

Since post posters here are sexually active, it would be a safe to assume the person is a fcker. However, I rather doubt anyone here has an IQ between 50-69.

Mental deficiency used to be more finely classified using the following technical terms that later began to be abused by the rest of society (5):

IQ Range - Classification
70-80 - Borderline deficiency
50-69 - Moron
20-49 - Imbecile
below 20 - Idiot

These are now largely obsolete and mental deficiency is now generally called mental retardation. The following is the currently used classification of retardation in the USA (5):
IQ Range - Classification
50-69 - Mild
35-49 - Moderate
20-34 - Severe
below 20 - Profound

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx

Therefor calling someone a moron would be either a direct personal attack or an obvious lie - or most likely both.