NationStates Jolt Archive

Would it possible to bring in a rule change that bans the practice of 'fixing' quotes? It seems to becoming more common; people are saying something, and then the quote is changed by someone else in the reply, usually with the word 'fixed' or 'fixed for accuracy'. A fictitious example to demonstrate:

I believe that we should not allow this behaviour.
I hate these people beacuse I'm a narrow minded fool.
Fixed.

Not only is this behaviour potentially libellous, highly unpleasant and incredibly irritating, it brings in huge potential for confusion in the debate as the 'fixed' comment may be missed or not understood.

If such 'fixed' comments were printed in a newspaper it is highly unlikely they would be able to defend the action in Court. To say 'I think they meant this' is one thing; to present it as if they did say it is quite another. I would really appreciate it if the mods could prohibit this behaviour, so that the only person quoted in a quote box is the author themselves.

Would it possible to bring in a rule change that bans the practice of 'fixing' quotes? It seems to becoming more common; people are saying something, and then the quote is changed by someone else in the reply, usually with the word 'fixed' or 'fixed for accuracy'. A fictitious example to demonstrate:




Not only is this behaviour potentially libellous, highly unpleasant and incredibly irritating, it brings in huge potential for confusion in the debate as the 'fixed' comment may be missed or not understood.

If such 'fixed' comments were printed in a newspaper it is highly unlikely they would be able to defend the action in Court. To say 'I think they meant this' is one thing; to present it as if they did say it is quite another. I would really appreciate it if the mods could prohibit this behaviour, so that the only person quoted in a quote box is the author themselves.

Speaking simply as a long time poster, I can't recall the mods having done anything about this. In fact, IIRC, there was a bit of a complaint about a mod having recently "fixed" something, and nothing was done.

I'd think at the very least the Mods would ask people to adhere to the wishes of a poster who explicitly says "don't 'fix' my quotes" and someone deliberately ignores their request, such as what happened to me in a thread I've complained about several times.

Well, I would still like an answer please. The practice has the potential to lower the level of debate, confuse those trying to follow it and, I believe, could be described as flamebaiting.

Well, I would still like an answer please. The practice has the potential to lower the level of debate, confuse those trying to follow it and, I believe, could be described as flamebaiting.



Sometimes its all in good fun. Somebody did that to me and I cracked up. It was funny.

Sometimes its all in good fun. Somebody did that to me and I cracked up. It was funny.
I don't crack up when people change things to make it look like something I didn't say. There is no excuse to allow it; if The Times printed a quote by Tony Blair saying "We invaded Iraq to get the oil" with a small "Fixed" disclaimer at the bottom, there would be hell to pay.

after digging through the forums for a while i came across a post made by Erastide on the subject:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10657772&postcount=7

not sure if any further rulings were made before/after that but it's the only one i could find.

after digging through the forums for a while i came across a post made by Erastide on the subject:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10657772&postcount=7

not sure if any further rulings were made before/after that but it's the only one i could find.
Ah, thank you. I thought I remembered something along those lines, but I still would like to ask the Mods to reconsider. It may just be an irritation at the moment, but aside from the principle of not wanting your own words changed, there is the fact that it has huge potential to cause flame wars.

I would suggest the following as a better template, if you want to say "what you really meant was...":

I believe that we should not allow this behaviour.
I think what you meant to say here is:
I hate these people beacuse I'm a narrow minded fool.

This makes it clear that exactly what the poster has changed, while still making the point.

One might note this thread in which the OP of a poll complained about a moderators malicious change of the poll essentially was a flame of the poster. (The poll options were changed from 1) and 2 both being "Bush is a Dumbass" to 1) "The OPer is a dumbass".)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489590

Also copletely ignored was Corneliu's complaint about posters changing his words. 'twas a few months ago, and I'm not digging it up tonight.

Anyhow, the point being that if the mods can acceptably change the wording of a poll to flame the OPer and they ignore (at least selectively) posters complaints about others doing the same, it seems unlikely that they'ssll do anything in this case....

Case-by-case basis only, I'm afraid. Malice is in the eye of the beholder, and sometimes there is a legitimate point to be made reversing an argument (eg replacing references to one group, with references to another).

Case-by-case basis only, I'm afraid. Malice is in the eye of the beholder, and sometimes there is a legitimate point to be made reversing an argument (eg replacing references to one group, with references to another).
Alright, thanks TG. I can't say I'm that surprised after seeing the post from Erastide that The Yi Ta dug up. I'll just continue to grumble quietly to myself. :)