Is it within the forum rules to alter the wording of a quote or change the name of the author in a manner which deceives the reader? If a poster does this is it within the rules to draw attention to this by accusing the poster of deceit or does this run fowl of rules governing personal attack? Is it a personal attack to accuse another poster of being a sockpuppet or self adoration? It appears that if a post is deleted a signed in member can see that this is so but it is not evident when the same post is subsequently reinstated, is that correct? Is it only the mod who has deleted a post that can reinstate it?
altering quotes is against the rules , I consider it flamebait , it is a PA to say your a pig , your a sock etc /// do not make it personal. Any Mod can delete and reinstate a post
Thanks. I can't understand though why a PA post which has been deleted by a mod would be reinstated and it would be nice if there was some indication of this and by whom just as there is with deletions.
No, you said "altering quotes is against the rules". I have, and I can't find anything in there about altering quotes. As a mod I suppose you can call anything flamebait if the site owner gives you that discretion, but it does nothing for your credibility to delete/warn/penalize on that basis and claim you're enforcing a rule that nobody can cite.
comma I consider it FLAMEBAIT IT is covered by flamebaiting or trolling , what other reason would anyone alter a quote except to stir up a reaction , I stand by what I said and will continue to enforce it
The stated reason clearly does not support the claim, since one moderator's interpretation of a rule is not a rule. Your claim about the rules was a complete idea, and a comma splice doesn't change that. You can consider anything flamebait. What you cannot do is credibly claim there is a rule against altering quotes. I've done it as a means of letting my adversary know he's evading the issue. Again, what you enforce is between you and the owner, but there is no sense pretending you're enforcing anything but a personal preference.
Who cares, different mods interpret and enforce the rules differently. Just like in real life. Lifes not fair. Roll with the punches.
The safe route, of course, is to just not address the other posters. If you focus exclusively on their argument, and don't ever talk about other posters, you'll be absolutely sure that you're not making a personal attack.
When someone deliberately changes someone's post for the purpose of flamebait or to insult can be a judgement call of the moderator. The moderator may decide it is a personal attack or it could be flamebait.
Okay?? If I knew what rule 13 was I might be offended. Any rule that precludes you from telling the truth can't be that good a rule. For the OP, don't sweat the small stuff and like the old man says, it's all small stuff!!
No, it is against the rules. It would be considered 'flamebait' to make it appear that another member actually wrote something that they did not, and meant something different from what was intended. The exception to that would be simply shortening/editing of a quote to select the important bit for comment, rather then quoting the entire message. Obviously there is a bit of a gray area there if that edited version seems to say something other than what the whole post said, but the mods have to judge whether it has been deliberately edited in that way to misrepresent or decieve. Generally, though, a quoted post should be quoted as it is, and edited only to highlight the portion which is being responded to, and not to change wording, misrepresent or decieve in any way. Yes. It is a direct attack on another member. If you suspect someone of being a sock, you should report that to the mods to be investigated, not attack the other member based on your suspicions - apart from anything else, you might be wrong about them (and yes, that has happened)! If a deleted post is reinstated, it would not be obvious - there would be nothing visible to show that it had once be deleted, and only mods would be able to look at the post history to see that it had. Any mod could technically reinstate a post deleted by any other mod, but generally we wouldn't do that. It's a matter of common courtesy between mods, as I'm sure you can understand. If a mod thinks another post shouldn't have been deleted by a fellow mod for some reason, they would contact the deleting mod to discuss the issue, not simply overrule their decision (it could be that there was a reason for the deletion that the reviewing mod hadn't noticed).
Thanks. I'm not used to being on US fora with lots of moderation. I'd like to see: 1) a rule against changing the text or author of any quotes or sections of, irrespective of source. 2) a brief explanation when a deleted post is reinstated as is the case when it is deleted. eg. "post reinstated by XXXX date time found not to be PA after review".
In agreement with you, other sites specifically forbid it, and I would like to see it specifically listed here, so that it is clear, at least to those who read the rules. Any opportunity to easily remove subjectivity and misunderstanding should be a worthwhile effort. However, altering a quote is cheap debate, and offensive. It is just as easy to quote and respond.
Well since i never asked about where it was, it must be something to do with sarcasm, since I know exactly where it is, (maybe it was an attack on me personally? I was inclined to lean more towards sarcasm),I just don't happen to have them memorized like some pathetic souls on here. I read the rules years ago when I joined, I don't remember a requirement to memorize them though. 　 　 The fact is my points were valid, truthful, and honest, and obviously immediately rejected, basically proving my point. Which is ironic wouldn't you say? 　 　 No hard feelings JP5 I still love you.
You don't remember that bit? Rule 47 - You will memorize the rules in their entirety, and then destroy all copies in your possession to ensure that they cannot fall into the wrong hands. This rule will self-destruct in 10 seconds. I was just light-heartedly making the point that if you don't know what 'Rule 13' says, it's easy enough to look up (and the rules are in the announcement at the top of every section of the forum, in case anybody doesn't know), and the rule itself should explain why the post was removed.
I took it as light-hearted, and I enloyed the little zing, but it doesn't make my statement any less true. So we can move on now, no offence taken here. I will limit my truths to other topics.
I would consider your sub-thread as trolling, ie your being a smartass, so be glad I'm not a moderator.
