Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Dumpshock News, Bug Reports, Feature Requests, & Discussion _ On the Honorable practice of "Fixing" posts
Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 10 2007, 09:14 AM
| QUOTE (Adam) | ||||
Admin post: Do not edit someone's text when quoting them. |
| QUOTE (Adam) | ||
Despite not having a fancy colour, this is an admin post!
I haven't seen it dozens of times, which is unfortunate, because I would have posted about it sooner. We're discussing backstage exactly how this will be handled in the future. If you're like to give further feedback about it, please start a thread in the News / Bug Reports / etc forum. |
Now, this concerns me both for the effect it may have on a traditional form of comedy and standard poster-prudence.
To begin, there is no doubt that it is both dishonorable and undesirable for one poster to misrepresent the words of another poster when making a quote and that it is a valid administrative goal to prevent such misrepresentation. However, their is a bright and bold line between blatant misrepresentation and clever parody. The longstanding tradition of "fixing" the posts of others by quoting them, altering the quoted text in a humorous and satirical manner, and clearly drawing attention to the fact that the text was altered, leaving no doubt that the text was altered for the purpose of satire or parody, does not offend the canons of message board etiquette. Other, more auspicious, bodies have determined that clear and obvious parody cannot be construed as slander or libel and rightly so. Such satire, made in good humor and accepted in good humor, cannot reasonably be considered an offense against the original poster and it certainly cannot be considered an offense against the community as a whole unless all irreverent humor is considered such an offense.
The prospect that such satire may be deemed an offense concerns this poster who has, on occasion, used the technique himself and who has garnered great pleasure from other's use of the technique. Exchanges such as that located in the thread stored as http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=9729 do not provide a material benefit to the forum but they serve to forge an esprit de corps that has infinite intangible benefits.
While I have no desire to see the recreation of the lounge area and understand that topical order must be maintained, it must be recognized that such mechanization of the rules without regard to poster intent and community tradition only damages the community as a whole and perverts the forum into something less than it currently is. The loss of community flavor and good-natured brotherhood that such a measure entails can only be detrimental to Dumpshock as a whole.
The second concern is in the use of the standard quotation editing technique of using brackets to represent corrections, clarifications, and the removal of extraneous text. Of particular concern is the use of epilepsies in brackets to indicate the removal of extraneous information, which is most important to this message board.
[...] Is commonly recognized to represent words removed from the body of an otherwise exact quote for one reason or another and is commonly used in professional, journalistic, and academic circles. It is often necessary and useful due to the fact that exact quotes can contain large amounts of extraneous text that does not relate to the topic that the quote is used to address. On message boards with easy cut-and-paste and auto-quote features, this is less necessary, but it is still useful. The removal of extraneous text from the body of a quote reduces the size of the board database. While it does not have any substantial impact in a single post, taken in aggregate the difference can be huge when compared to full quotes of long posts, particularly when a series of quotes are exchanged. It is also makes things less confusing for readers, when it is done correctly. By removing points that are not intended to be addressed from a quote, a replying poster can better clarify his argument, which is better for everyone in the long run, and readers are saved from the requirement of reading the extraneous test all over again.
Posted by: Trigger Aug 10 2007, 09:28 AM
Hmm, I know that I have done the editing of quotes myself in the parody and satirical senses and I saw the post of Adam's on that day and I was frankly confused by it, since I had seen the comedic alterations done a number of times, even on occasion by admins. I never saw any harm in its use for the purposes of comedy or satire and I have never seen it used any other way, so I did not see what the problem with it is.
Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 10 2007, 09:38 AM
Yeah, I was rather confused by the whole thing myself. Obviously taking someone's words and rearranging them in a [quote] box is one thing, but telling them you're doing so while having fun with it? That's entirely different.
And this is coming from a guy who's guilty of often misusing quotation marks to paraphrase and emphasize things. 
(I really should work on that more...)
Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 10 2007, 12:20 PM
I also object to this being made a point of policy or enforcement. I'd like to hear from Adam (or another administrator with similar views) what objectionable elements are found in this practice, and which of those objectionable elements are not already forbidden by another rule (and of those which aren't, which could not be forbidden by another rule that covers a practice undesirable even in the absence of quote-editing).
~J
Posted by: eidolon Aug 10 2007, 01:47 PM
Don't get yourselves too worked up. This has become a non-issue for the most part.
(Normal color for readability.)
The objection lay in using this particular posting method in a malicious fashion. Since on these boards it is used to make jokes, more than anything, we aren't going to prohibit the practice, but rather we will be making sure that nobody does this in such a way that it basically breaks another board rule.
So long story short? No real change.
Posted by: Bull Aug 10 2007, 01:58 PM
The real worries here were this:
1) Maliciousness. Using this as an "innocent" way to mock or insult someone.
2) The possibility that someone might get upset of offended, inadvertently, by this practice, since you are changing what they wrote, and the meaning behind it.
and finally, and this one is a biggie:
3) Sheer idiocy. This is a little forum meme that's been around for a while, and I've seen it degenerate a bit on certain boards, to the point where threads become damn near unreadable due to the number of "lolz! Fixed ur post!" crap. Its not really all that amusing once, and it definitely loses it's flavor after the 8th or 10th time in a single thread.
It's still up for debate behind the curtains, but I think our final stance on it is, as Eido says, that it's a non-issue.
A) It's not really that big a deal, just don;t abuse it. Doesn't matter what the meme or why it's being done or how funny everyone and their dog thinks it is, if it gets used to the point where it's derailing things or detracting from actual Shadowrun discussions, we'll tell you to stop. As long as it's used in sparse moderation, no biggie.
B) As a tangent to this, though, never, ever misquote someone deliberately for any reason during normal debate and discussion. Besides the fact it's pretty easy to track and see that they were misquoted, it's incredibly rude and as far as we're concerned, cause for us to step in and take some kind of action.
We're in the process of redoing the ToS and poster Guidelines and all that. This sort of thing should be covered in there to some degree.
Bull
Posted by: tisoz Aug 10 2007, 03:20 PM
Maybe something in the TOS that Dumpshock will no longer be a happy, fun, good-time place to visit?
Posted by: Critias Aug 10 2007, 04:19 PM
Man. I hope everyone -- especially the this-is-my-serious-face-mods posting here -- appreciates that I managed to make it all the way to the end of this thread, without quoting anyone, deleting their text, and just writing "Heehee, I'm gay!" and then clicking the submit post button.
The temptation was there, trust me. Just to break the mood.
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Aug 10 2007, 04:20 PM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| The second concern is in the use of the standard quotation editing technique of using brackets to represent corrections, clarifications, and the removal of extraneous text. Of particular concern is the use of epilepsies in brackets to indicate the removal of extraneous information, which is most important to this message board. [...] Is commonly recognized to represent words removed from the body of an otherwise exact quote for one reason or another and is commonly used in professional journalistic, and academic circles. It is often necessary and useful due to the fact that exact quotes can contain large amounts of extraneous text that does not relate to the topic that the quote is used to address. On message boards with easy cut-and-paste and auto-quote features, this is less necessary, but it is still useful. The removal of extraneous text from the body of a quote reduces the size of the board database. While it does not have any substantial impact in a single post, taken in aggregate the difference can be huge when compared to full quotes of long posts, particularly when a series of quotes are exchanged. It is also makes things less confusing for readers, when it is done correctly. By removing points that are not intended to be addressed from a quote, a replying poster can better clarify his argument, which is better for everyone in the long run, and readers are saved from the requirement of reading the extraneous test all over again. |
I have often edited stuff out of quotes before because I'm only interested in commenting on one or two points in an otherwise huge post, and I've done the ellipses points thing, but I didn't know that I was supposed to put them in brackets.
That's good to know, thanks.
Should they be used when cutting things from the beginning and end of a quote (like I just did), or only when you're cutting things from the middle?
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Aug 10 2007, 04:23 PM
| QUOTE (Critias @ Aug 10 2007, 11:19 AM) |
| [...]Heehee, I'm gay![...] |
edit: In an attempt to redeem this post:
Thanks, hyzmarca, for your well thought out and well written original post. Not that I'm anyone who matters, but it's still nice to see diplomatic dialog instead of "OMFG u mods are teh suck!!1"
And Critias, your post is still making me giggle.
Posted by: Demerzel Aug 10 2007, 04:46 PM
| QUOTE ( Moon-Hawk) |
| Should they be used when cutting things from the beginning and end of a quote (like I just did), or only when you're cutting things from the middle? |
Without referring to MLA guidelines I’d have to guess thus:
When your quote represents an entire thought ellipsis is unnecessary. If you were, for example, highlighting a phrase in a sentence then you would need ellipsis. Also, if there is any risk of your quote being taken out of context ellipsis should be used. Such as two sentences where the second places a condition on the first, and quoting only the first may change the meaning.
Posted by: Kagetenshi Aug 10 2007, 04:51 PM
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk) |
| Should they be used when cutting things from the beginning and end of a quote (like I just did), or only when you're cutting things from the middle? |
I'm not sure there's any consensus, except when your passage begins or ends within a sentence or possibly paragraph. The braces are actually optional (or rather, not always used with ellipses--a substitution is always placed in braces), but are less ambiguous, especially if the quoted user uses ellipsis for sentence flow.
Note that <snip> is a similar construct. I haven't seen it around these parts in a while, but you may run into it, particularly on mailing lists. Sometimes a reason for the snip is given inside the angle-brackets.
~J
Posted by: Moon-Hawk Aug 10 2007, 04:54 PM
| QUOTE (Demerzel @ Aug 10 2007, 11:46 AM) |
| Also, if there is any risk of your quote being taken out of context ellipsis should be used. |
Thanks for the clarification.
So then, my quote of Critias was a demonstrative tool and not, in fact, a puerile stunt.
edit: Thanks Kagetenshi.
Posted by: Demerzel Aug 10 2007, 04:57 PM
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Aug 10 2007, 09:54 AM) |
| So then, my quote of Critias was a demonstrative tool and not, in fact, a puerile stunt. |
They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Aug 10 2007, 05:38 PM
*trying this without scary mod face*
The issue with the quote that brougth this all up was the manner of it. I was within a quote box suggesting a direct quote, but the text it's self was changed without any indicators. So if there had say been a strike line through the original text for example, it would have been more clearly a joke than a misquote. That's it.
The problem is misquoting rather than joking or snipping a quote. Hope that helps some.
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| especially the this-is-my-serious-face-mods posting here |
Better?
Posted by: Bull Aug 10 2007, 05:47 PM
| QUOTE (Critias) |
| Man. I hope everyone -- especially the this-is-my-serious-face-mods posting here -- appreciates that I managed to make it all the way to the end of this thread, without quoting anyone, deleting their text, and just writing "Heehee, I'm gay!" and then clicking the submit post button. The temptation was there, trust me. Just to break the mood. |
Heh.
S'kay. We're not trying to be dicks, really. Well, ok, I am. But I'm under a lot of stress these days. I just can't help it.
No, seriously. There' actually be a lot of backstage chatter about this stuff. I'm fairly certain even with only what, the 9 mods that we have now, our Mod Forum is getting more action than the SR3 forum is
Granted, half of that's drunken Gen Con planning, but still... We've been tossing around a lot of idea and we're really wanting to do some stuff to clean up the TOS and to write a few backstage rules as well so that hopefully the moderation is a bit more even once we relaunch, and that things are a bit clearer for the users.
Bull
Posted by: Adam Aug 10 2007, 06:04 PM
Hey all,
I apologized to Fortune after-the-fact for my actions in that thread, but didn't go back into the thread to make an apology as it had moved on and I didn't want to derail, but I'll relay that here -- I let my extreme dislike for the "fixed it for you" practice take over, did some bad administration, and pretty much everyone [including the other admins] thought I had gone nuts. And maybe I had. My post was not consistent with policy and not consistent with future policy, and I apologize: I screwed up.
Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Aug 10 2007, 06:13 PM
Hey even Capt Chaos made mistakes. Of course, he's dead now, so no one talks about it. So see Adam, if you just martyr you self....
Posted by: Fortune Aug 10 2007, 10:15 PM
I was tossed up about whether to post in this thread. I even slept on in beforehand.
| QUOTE (eidolon) |
| Don't get yourselves too worked up. This has become a non-issue for the most part. |
This pretty much sums up the case. As things had been resolved in PMs, there was no real need for me to bring the subject up again in the thread in question (or here for that matter).
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)