NationStates Jolt Archive

On the thread in general 'should vigilanteeism (sic) be legal, a certain person is bragging about 'loving' messing with peoples quotes. I myself regularly take just a small part of quotes to make my points but is it allowed for the wholesale editing and adding words not typed by the original poster? Personally, I think it a form of baiting. A ruling please, especialy on that thread? Thanks.

He's not just twisting words, he's flaming other people in their own quote boxes.

To save time, can we have a link to at least the thread if not the actual posts in question? I'd run through the forums to find it normally, but my modem hates me, so any help would be much appreciated.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98169

The poster in question is "Siphilitic Piddly Woo". I'm not sure how to link to a post, so just scroll down on page 1 until you start seeing quotes.

Righto. I've locked the thread and posted a message explaining why. If another GM sees this, I'd be appreciative if they could record a warning on Siphilitic Piddly Woo at the Mod Centre, since my browser refuses to connect to it right now.

Righto. I've locked the thread and posted a message explaining why. If another GM sees this, I'd be appreciative if they could record a warning on Siphilitic Piddly Woo at the Mod Centre, since my browser refuses to connect to it right now.

Ehh, methinks that lots of Piddly Woo's (or similar) have been deleted already, but it might be a copy cat this time? :wink:

I edit quotes all the time, but only to shorten them. And I'm careful to avoid editing to the point of changing the context of what I think the poster means. There should be an official ruling to define what is allowable though, to avoid confusion.

correcting a comma fault (I'm very anal about punctuation).

I don't know what piddly did to get deaded but thanks Enodia for sorting out the quote thingy. You know, this grassing lark can get addictive, I'll have to watch it.

<snip>

There should be an official ruling to define what is allowable though, to avoid [any further] confusion.

[Emphsasis mine.]

I won't comment officially, as I would have to confer with the other mods, first (and everyone here is familiar with the Infamous Bureucratic Mod Slowness :wink ).

However, what I personally do is to clearly indicate whether or not I have modified someone's post when quoting it. Any material that I added to clarify what I think that poster meant, I put in brackets (as shown above).

If I consider a large segment of the post I am responding to to be irrelevant to my reply, then I usually leave it out and indicate that material has been removed with a "<snip>".

If I added italics or bold to point out something in a post, then I usually indicate that in a comment like "[Emphasis mine.]" or "[Italics emphasis mine; bold emphasis by original author.]"

I hope this helps. Keep in mind that this is not official.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder of The Realm of Ambrosia

As a rule, misleadingly quoting someone else is not banned, in the same way it's not prohibited to quote nonexistent facts to support your argument in a debate. It's kind of silly and desperate, and you'll damage your own credibility, but it's not banned.

If someone alters a quote to make it abusive or flamebait, however, then the mods may intervene. Abusive content is prohibited no matter what form it comes in.

]As a rule, misleadingly quoting someone else is not banned, in the same way it's not prohibited to quote nonexistent facts to support your argument in a debate. It's kind of silly and desperate, and you'll damage your own credibility, but it's not banned.

If someone alters a quote to make it abusive or flamebait, however, then the mods may intervene. Abusive content is prohibited no matter what form it comes in.

A rare visit from violet. Thanks.

Rare...perhaps...

Informative...indeed