Changing somebody's post when quoting them. Can a mod clarify this for me?

A while back, I was issued an infraction for quoting somebody and changing what they wrote. It's commonly called "fixed that for you". I have noticed that certain people have been doing this frequently, and despite being reported, their posts are never deleted, and it appears that they are not issued warnings because they continue doing it.

Here is just one example. Is this allowed on the site, or not? I'd like to know once and for all.

Thank you.

 

That is one of my biggest pet peeves...pure flaming.

I don't mind if someone "snips" my comment to reply to a specific point...but when they purposely alter the content, I'd just as soon split their skull.

I think it should be a permaban offense after 1 warning.

 

No it is not allowed, and that post was deleted, Brewskier. If you see anymore, let me know.

 

I change people's words often when I quote them. Mostly for simplicity, or to correct spelling errors. I never try to change the meaning of what they typed. But if it is a long sentence, I will sometimes cut out a phrase just to address only a certain point.

 

What if we're just translating for them? For instance:

Which is in a foreign language (against forum rules) becomes:

 

C'mon Todd, what should you do if you come upon a rule violation?

 

I was recently corrected by my friend old timer that i met at smarties bar for misspelling the word geyser as geiser, there was no bad intentions there but some of my opponents in debate have corrected me in inflammatory ways so those type of posts should be reported to the moderator on duty. Hope this helps the OPs dilemma

 

It should depend on the case. For example if it is something obvious and meant as a joke like guy A says "Bush was the worst president in all of history" and guy B quotes him and says fixed that for you "Obama was the the worst president in all of history". That is fairly innocuous and I don't see any real prolem with that. If however people are quoting people and deliberately changing the quote in order to make the other person look like they lied or contradicted themselves during a serious debate than I would consider that a serious breach. I don't read what I wrote when people quote me I just assume that they hit the "Reply with Quote" button like I do. I agree with the other poster that it should be a 1 time warning, second time is a month long ban and a third time is a permanent ban.

There is really no reason at all for changing someones post with the exception of when people are responding to long posts with multiple paragraphs and you are responding to each section individually. That I don't see as an issue.

 

Granny says dey ever try dat on her...

... dey liable to draw back a bloody nub.

 

That is an invitation to mess things up even if its not a rules violation. Once in an editorial the editor changed the word impotent to important ! He thought it was bad grammar or that he knew what I meant or he just did not like me (I send many many letters to our hick newspaper that are unpopular with the old money etc in this town). Anyway, that one (malicious?) change perverted the entire letters point and it did not win any accolades from the mayors office. Similar (malicious?) things have happened in this forum. There's too much chance for abuse allowing someone to change a direct quote. So I would urge everyone to use quote tags when quoting and never change a direct quote.

reva

btw the posts in the link given seemed to be deleted because of member insults etc. Where did someone change anothers quote?

 

Exactly. I've done that a handful of times. It's pretty common on the internet and normal people don't complain about it. Of course it's some kind of problem here I guess. It's kind of funny. "Fixing" posts is frowned upon here but allowed on the rest of the internet. Racism is frowned up in the rest of the internte (sans Stormfront) but wholeheartedly encouraged here. Just part of the upside down world of the forum I guess.

I know when I've "fixed" posts the intent was to make a point with humor. I always bold and make my change in red. The humor is lost if other readers can't tell what you changed. Not sure why this practice is discouraged. There really is not logical reason for sane adults to have a problem with it as long as you make it clear you changed something.

I agree though surreptitiously changing someone's words in a quote though is totally unacceptable. I know of no legitimate reason do to that.

I would be interested in knowing from the mods how "fixing" posts in the manner I have done violates the spirit of the TOS. I've actually never heard of anyone objecting to the practice before.

 

Please show me a post where an Administrator on this site "wholeheartedly encouraged" racism.

 

The fact that you and your ilk are still posting here speaks to the truth of the matter.

 

Care to elaborate?

Allowing people to post their opinions is the same thing as "wholeheartedly encouraging" those opinions? There's a huge logic pitfall in there that I hope you can recognize.

 

While specific admins don't encourage it, board policies definitely encourage it. Specifically, allowing group insults but forbidding individual insults encourages it.

You can hysterically scream the worst slurs and insults imaginable at entire groups -- that is, racism -- and not have a problem. You didn't insult a specific poster, so it's all good, according to board policy.

However, if someone then directs a strong reply to that individual -- well, that qualifies as a personal insult, and the person who was so un-PC as to point out the obvious racism gets a ban.

So, the racists roam unhindered, and anyone who dares criticize them gets the ban. That has an effect of encouraging racists to gather here, as they know they can spout racist nonsense and be safe from being called on it.

 

I was hoping Jeb would have answered, since he was the one who made the claim.

The board policies allow the freedom to express one's views as long as they comply with the site rules. That includes views that lefties are not comfortable with, hence, the continuing push by the left to have certain topics of conversation banned. That's what fascists do.

No, "anyone who dares (to) criticize them" would not get a ban. Like you just finished saying, groups can be insulted, individual members can not.

 

well now , Brewman , what your saying has been said many times and in many ways and several languages , sometimes we all take poetic liscence in the search of brevity in our response to a lengthy post , triming the post a bit to better focus the reply, as you've noted in my reply. Would you consider my 'trimming' as ok in retaining the essense and spirit of your post ?

Sheesh , what a grouch .....

Anders , LOL , I'm ok with your phrase-cutting , but you'll trim a one paragraph post and then make a 4 paragraph re-bettal . LOL ..

well toddwv , it's sort of like trying to help somebody that stutters badly as they try to say " Doo ddd nttt SSttte eet teta ta ppp nnnnan thh atttta a ttt pppp iiiipp eeep piioi ppi leee oooo fofff bbbe ebarrar aree ssshhhhi irrrtttt ahhhh . son nnnn nyyy." LOL .

sure holpes this translation in 'stutterance speak' and being a former stutter myself : it means > don't step in that pile of bear shiot there sony. .

all ya can do is take a real long slow step ahead and hope everybody comes through with clean boots . . . same way with trimming a post . the op creator should have more of a say in weeding out unsavory content on their own thread , it'd sure save the mods a lot of wear & tear , just saying . . might be a good idea . . .it might be , try it for week , as an award to a deserving thread creator in several catagories / topics on the Forum , make it an award , be a trial Advisor on your thread for a week , subject to PF Staff oversight , of course .

 

hey RevA , just now getting back on-line , I got yahood , Geek Squad fixd whilst we all ate a fresh hot buttermilk & jelly biscut and hot McD's coffee . .seems my yahoo e.mail account got whacked , been seriously considering going to g-mail.com , ever hear of them ?

back to the topic , , this editorial situation here , I'm agreeing 100 % that a direct quote should be respected and designated as " such " , and with due credits . . I've seen some very clever minipulations with misphrasing sentences / sources as well . . in particular , on the religious postings . . we've spoken of this before

where I would suggest we parlay is where someone replys to a lengthy post with a lengthy post of their own . As it makes the multi-quote circut , it becomes quite tiresome to scroll down through all that . . in that aspect , I have myself trimmed posts , but I always try to maintain the integrity and intent of the post , and also state that I have done so somewhere in my reply as a courtesy. . In my opinion , in a personal discussion , I am of the opinion it makes for a more focused discussion and is a lot easier for folks to stay on-topic .

A little guidance is needed , and has been for a long time .

In my opinion , the Creator of the Thread , the OP Post , set's the topic / tone / theme for the thread , and should have more of an Editorial control than we have at present , especially over their own thread , regardless of the Forum Topic . To say again , the OP could and probably is the best and fairest judge of the intent of his own thread , since he/she created it .

Makes sense to me . , prolly give the PF Staff a bit of a break as well . . just saying

It could be structured as an award , like all the others we've been getting last few weeks , make it like a pat on the back for a great thread. pick as many forums as you want.

You Have Limited Control of your Thread for One Week Award .

you are granted the LIKE high-five 50X like points & icon . . ? /ex? .

here are also 5 of these for friendly whacks , first 3 you need PF Staff pre-approval .

here's your one bullet , use it wisely . PF Staff must pre-approve the bite first . maynot . . .

 

I think the rule should be modified. As long as the fix is visually obvious what is the possible harm? On other boards I use the bolded word convention and add in my portion the bolded words correct your statement, or fixed it so it is right or other words that clearly show that I changed the original words.

It juxtaposes the two thoughts in a simple-to-understand way.

 

A QUOTE is a QUOTE.............period. No change of spelling or wording or substance should be allowed. At best, and I have done this, is to add YOUR comments in bold and noting that YOUR comments are in bold.

Any such editing of someone's post should be deleted and a warning issued to the person who does so.

Example

Let me correct that for you "Obama is the worst President ever!"

That's how it should be done.