Make changing direct quotes "illegal" in CC

[PLAYER57832]

Concise description:
Make intentionally misquoting someone against CC rules.

Specifics/Details:
If I say "joe blo said I believe xyz.", then it may or may not be accurate, but there is no pretense that it is the exact wording (at least, folks should know its not).

If, however, I post this:

xyz

Or say "Joe said:

xyz

...then it would violate the rule. In many cases, this will be an error, or can be conceived to be an error. Then, the person shall be asked to change it. If the person refuses OR if it is clearly an obvious mis-quote (someone in a debate changes the wording to say something directly opposite or offensive)

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
I know I am guilty of doing this by accident, but I think its usually evident I have goofed, and I do my best to correct it immediately (though I really need to be more careful, I fully admit!).

Basically, it gets down to the "itegrity" of threads and posts. I know people misunderstand, paraphrase, etc. Most of us know the distinction between that and a direct quote. This distinction is important and needs to be maintained.

Again, I am only objecting to direct quotes being changed. If you want to claim that "joe told me the sky is green, not blue!" then it is obnoxious, but not something CC should necessarily "punish". The real quote is back there. However, when someone pretends to quote someone else and changes the wording... soon it becomes hard to tell if someone actually said what is quoted or not. It means we have to go back and read each and every thread in full, to find all the original quotes before being sure. Sometimes that is possible, but some of these threads are so long and "winding" , not to mention a quote may come from an entirely different thread. I think this rule is important to implement and long overdue.

[jefjef]

Well changed quotes have already been punished in the past when they have been changed to flames etc...

BTW: You can access someones posts via their wall. You do not need to scroll thru threads to see what they posted...

[rdsrds2120]

Well changed quotes have already been punished in the past when they have been changed to flames etc...

BTW: You can access someones posts via their wall. You do not need to scroll thru threads to see what they posted...

Yes. Sometimes, changing quotations can be humorous and ok in a jokingly manner. When the misquotes themselves violate the community guidelines, then action is taken. I do believe that making this go through would draw us farther away from our liberal stance on rules, enforcement, etc., than closer to it.

-rd

[IcePack]

-1....

[PLAYER57832]

Well changed quotes have already been punished in the past when they have been changed to flames etc...

Yes. Sometimes, changing quotations can be humorous and ok in a jokingly manner. When the misquotes themselves violate the community guidelines, then action is taken. I do believe that making this go through would draw us farther away from our liberal stance on rules, enforcement, etc., than closer to it.

-rd

If it were a rule, then people who were joking would simply remove the quotes, for the most part. I am not suggesting there be a heavy punishment per se. The big thing is that people be told to edit. Only if they don't.. or there is some seriously mistating a quote would they get anything more serious (even an official warning). Note that I am referring to some specific incidents, both recent and in the past.

BTW: You can access someones posts via their wall. You do not need to scroll thru threads to see what they posted...

??? No... or at least, not in any helpful manner. Sure, you can see all someone's posts, but some people post a LOT.

[jefjef]

BTW: You can access someones posts via their wall. You do not need to scroll thru threads to see what they posted...

??? No... or at least, not in any helpful manner. Sure, you can see all someone's posts, but some people post a LOT.

You just misquoted rdsrds2120 - intentionally or otherwise. That was my post not his. Should you be punished? A week forum ban maybe...

After looking into the evidence PLAYER has been WARNED for an Illegal quote.

PLAYER misquoted rdsrds as posting what jefjef did. Although it appears to be an accident it might be intentional - a clever mistake. This practice is unacceptable and influences others to be less responsible of their posting.

For this case PLAYER could have simply edited the quote but failed to do so.

It would be impossible to control this practice if we don't severely punish this type of activity. Accidental or intentional - It falls on you not to abuse your forum quoting privileges.

[lord voldemort]

you cant be serious...

[Dibbun]

What a ridiculous suggestion. Lol @ jefjef's warning template.

[AAFitz]

What an awesome suggestion. Lol @ jefjef....

In the interest of satire, humor or just goofy, quotes are changed quite frequently.

Almost no one believes a quote 100% at face value, especially if it is important or stands out in some way.

Usually the misquoter suffers more damage than the quoted, if they were trying to make a point and changed someones quote to be taken seriously, because they eliminate all trust whatsoever, and essentially take any possible truth out of what they were trying to say in the first place.

In other words, no real damage is ever done by misquoting, in any real or substantial way.

[Army of GOD]

why so serious...

Wait...f*ck...

[blakebowling]

This was one of my original concerns when this version of phpBB came out (not on CC, when the actual folks at phpBB released it).

My solution was to modify the quote function of a post to use a seperate BBCode that would take an input of a post ID, while leaving the current BBCode the way it is. However this wasn't done as the majority at phpBB liked it the way it is now for several reasons including the ability to shorten quotes.

I really don't see a problem with "misquoting". If its that big of a deal, go find the original post, and read it in it's entirety.

[Darwins_Bane]

And what about the C&A forum, they live on "misquoting" for adding links.

[TheFissk]

i believe that this should fall on the community to enforce simply by pointing out the misquote so it could be changed or noted or whatever. it would be a waste of somebodies time to go around moderating every quote

[karelpietertje]

This was one of my original concerns when this version of phpBB came out (not on CC, when the actual folks at phpBB released it).

My solution was to modify the quote function of a post to use a seperate BBCode that would take an input of a post ID, while leaving the current BBCode the way it is. However this wasn't done as the majority at phpBB liked it the way it is now for several reasons including the ability to shorten quotes.

I really don't see a problem with "quoting". If its that big of a deal, go find the original post, and read it in it's entirety.

I don't think there is any possibilities for partial quoting when a quote takes the input of an ID...

Oh, and yeah, I think any perpetrators of the suggested ruling are already being intentionally annoying and can already be disciplined, so there's no need for it.
Good job in spreading some misquoting awareness though.

[Metsfanmax]

Yes. Sometimes, changing quotations can be humorous and ok in a jokingly manner. When the misquotes themselves violate the community guidelines, then action is taken. I do believe that making this go through would draw us farther away from our liberal stance on rules, enforcement, etc., than closer to it.

There are some ways to do it that could be quite hurtful. For instance, I could simply manufacture a quote of someone saying they don't like black people, and that person's life would probably become miserable even if they had never said anything of the sort.

[rdsrds2120]

Yes. Sometimes, changing quotations can be humorous and ok in a jokingly manner. When the misquotes themselves violate the community guidelines, then action is taken. I do believe that making this go through would draw us farther away from our liberal stance on rules, enforcement, etc., than closer to it.

There are some ways to do it that could be quite hurtful. For instance, I could simply manufacture a quote of someone saying they don't like black people, and that person's life would probably become miserable even if they had never said anything of the sort.

Yes, and they'd probably receive discipline for an infraction.

-rd

[GreecePwns]

I would like to apologize for my actions which led to an incedent which led to this suggestion being made. They led to a misunderstanding that I had not intended, and I received a formal warning for what I have done.

Do I have regrets? No. Do I believe what I did is worthy of punishment? No. Do I believe this should be made illegal? No. It was, in fact, a misunderstanding and my point was entirely misconstrued, and this is taking it too far.

[Metsfanmax]

Yes. Sometimes, changing quotations can be humorous and ok in a jokingly manner. When the misquotes themselves violate the community guidelines, then action is taken. I do believe that making this go through would draw us farther away from our liberal stance on rules, enforcement, etc., than closer to it.

There are some ways to do it that could be quite hurtful. For instance, I could simply manufacture a quote of someone saying they don't like black people, and that person's life would probably become miserable even if they had never said anything of the sort.

Yes, and they'd probably receive discipline for an infraction.

-rd

I don't think the example I gave is expressly against the Community Guidelines though (as it stands now).

[jefjef]

When the misquotes themselves violate the community guidelines, then action is taken.

I don't think the example I gave is expressly against the Community Guidelines though (as it stands now).

It is if it's a flame/bigotry/severe trolling bait/falsifying evidence, etc...

I would like to apologize for my actions which led to an incedent which led to this suggestion being made. They led to a misunderstanding that I had not intended, and I received a formal warning for what I have done.

This is just to avoid any confusion out there, that pm that theherkman is pointing did not came from king sam but came from me. Copying a pm and changing the author of a pm takes some effort to do. This is not an "easy mistake" to make without putting some effort into it. If it was a mistake on your part, if it has already been pointed out to you that he did not sent you that pm, check that pm again before making those kind posts above.

This can be seen as baiting the other member, in this case a moderator, who you have refused to listen. Appropriate action has been taken for this.

Abuse of this activity is already moderated. This sugg is one for the rejected pile. Not worthy of endless pages of discussion or valuable server space.