NationStates Jolt Archive

This poster effectively rewrote a post I had made earlier:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10655022&postcount=20

It seems that he was more trying to make a point. He didn't try to hide that he had changed what you said. If you disagree with his point, you're free to tell him that his alteration doesn't make any sense.

It seems that he was more trying to make a point. He didn't try to hide that he had changed what you said. If you disagree with his point, you're free to tell him that his alteration doesn't make any sense.

So I was banned for the samething but this guy doesn't even get a warning?

I don't know the particulars of your case Novaga. But in this case it didn't seem like the change was malicious in any way. More that by turning the statement on its head, the poster was trying to make a point about its validity.

It seems that he was more trying to make a point. He didn't try to hide that he had changed what you said. If you disagree with his point, you're free to tell him that his alteration doesn't make any sense.
:rolleyes:

I don't know the particulars of your case Novaga. But in this case it didn't seem like the change was malicious in any way. More that by turning the statement on its head, the poster was trying to make a point about its validity.

I actually had a case where I was accused of altering posts to be nasty and the mod, Katganistan, said there was no basis. I wish I could actually find the thread in general, but I believe she indicated that the post has to either indicate the post was modified from the original in some way or be a fairly obvious addition to make the reply clearer (like bolding).

Example:
I think you are incorrect. (notice how Jocabia says he thinks not that he knows). There is no evidence to support your assertion. (no evidence is not the same as being wrong.)
I think it's clear that Jocabia has nothing to stand on.

Edits like those make it obvious or edits like -
I think you are incorrect. There is no evidence to support your assertion.
See you think, but you don't know.

Again, obvious that I made the edit and did so to make my reply make more sense.

Or-
Original quote:
There is no evidence to support your assertion.
Reply:
I am not aware of any evidenc that supports your assertion.
Editted to make this more correct

All of these, make how and why the post is editted obvious.

Now, assume Eut is not a well-known poster and assume you know nothing about his posting style. Reading that post and not having seen the original post how would one be certain or even relatively certain it was edited. Certainly there are posters who sound just like the edited post.

I'd have to say that it does not seem clear to me that it was not something that Eut said (if I didn't know Eut so well as to know there's no way he'd talk that way in seriousness).

EDIT: The reply is a small indicater and it does seem to more of an effort to make an argument than be malicious, but I don't think it makes it very clear. I think the poster certainly could have made a better effort to not create the possibility of that being a post by Eut.

After consulting with another moderator, I will add the point that Jocabia brought up, which is to bold or clearly indicate what you've changed if you plan to edit a statement.

Agreed, the poster didn't make a good attempt to explain his statement or connect it to the argument, and if the debate was still going, I would post as much in the thread. However, I'm not going to bump something that stopped 5 hours ago.

After several years here, I knew I'd eventually do something useful. ;)

I don't know the particulars of your case Novaga. But in this case it didn't seem like the change was malicious in any way. More that by turning the statement on its head, the poster was trying to make a point about its validity.

That was what I was trying to do in my case.