People Who Edit Other's Posts in Replies

[Lewdog]

I can't remember if I started a thread about his before, but I think there should be a forum rule against people editing out part of a person's quote when using it in a reply. I see people do it all the time in order to use it to their advantage and make the quote look out of context. You'll have people argue that they only want to reply to part of the quote... but why can't you do that and still quote the whole post? Nothing is stopping you. It actually takes more effort to go in and edit out part of the quote than just to quote the whole thing.

So some people like to break up quotes and answer it in sections, point by point. I get that, but that is not the same thing as what I'm complaining about here.

I've been told that it is against the rules for someone to edit someone's quote in a reply to make it out of context, BUT it is on a situation by situation basis and therefor is up to the judgment of whatever mod that so happens to read your ticket. There really is no need to even do that, just make it so that it is against the rules to edit someone's quote in a replay...get rid of the whole idea of everything being a judgment call and a crap shoot on what mod you get reviewing the situation.

 

[The Great Goose]

Fake news!

 

[Manonthestreet]

As long as the part posted is accurate whats the prob

 

[Wyatt earp]

I can't remember if I started a thread about his before, but I think there should be a forum rule against people editing out part of a person's quote when using it in a reply. I see people do it all the time in order to use it to their advantage and make the quote look out of context. You'll have people argue that they only want to reply to part of the quote... but why can't you do that and still quote the whole post? Nothing is stopping you. It actually takes more effort to go in and edit out part of the quote than just to quote the whole thing.

So some people like to break up quotes and answer it in sections, point by point. I get that, but that is not the same thing as what I'm complaining about here.

I've been told that it is against the rules for someone to edit someone's quote in a reply to make it out of context, BUT it is on a situation by situation basis and therefor is up to the judgment of whatever mod that so happens to read your ticket. There really is no need to even do that, just make it so that it is against the rules to edit someone's quote in a replay...get rid of the whole idea of everything being a judgment call and a crap shoot on what mod you get reviewing the situation.

No one has done it to me in a long time after I first reported them and that didn't work

So I started fighting fire with fire and started changing their quotes.


.

 

[Pogo]

As long as the part posted is accurate whats the prob

The prob would be if the context is removed and thereby the meaning of the remainder is altered.

There are also those who cut out the parts they can't deal with and leave something trivial just to play one-upmanship games.

 

[Kat]

I do not know as a fact atm but I think editing quotes of others is a no no.

 

[Lewdog]

I do not know as a fact atm but I think editing quotes of others is a no no.

I was told it was only against the rules if it is reported and the mod that reviews the report agrees that the way the quote was edited changes the context of the quote. So it is a case by case basis... which I think is a wrong way to handle the situation, and puts too much power and burden in the hands of mods. It would just be simple to say that you must use the entire quote, even if you break it up into pieces to respond to it.

 

[Manonthestreet]

As long as the part posted is accurate whats the prob

The prob would be if the context is removed and thereby the meaning of the remainder is altered.

There are also those who cut out the parts they can't deal with and leave something trivial just to play one-upmanship games.

Most of what I see is people trying to claim something posted says the opposite of what it clearly says.......libs love that tactic

 

[Gracie]

Except in certain parts of the board because its done all the time.

Editing a quote should be a no no..no matter where its done. But, that is just my opinion, which means squat.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I do not know as a fact atm but I think editing quotes of others is a no no.

I was told it was only against the rules if it is reported and the mod that reviews the report agrees that the way the quote was edited changes the context of the quote. So it is a case by case basis... which I think is a wrong way to handle the situation, and puts too much power and burden in the hands of mods. It would just be simple to say that you must use the entire quote, even if you break it up into pieces to respond to it.

The way quoting is handled in this software, with the accumulation of previous quotes, it gets very cumbersome very quickly if you don't edit out quoted material that isn't directly relevant to your reply.

 

[Kat]

I do not know as a fact atm but I think editing quotes of others is a no no.

I was told it was only against the rules if it is reported and the mod that reviews the report agrees that the way the quote was edited changes the context of the quote. So it is a case by case basis... which I think is a wrong way to handle the situation, and puts too much power and burden in the hands of mods. It would just be simple to say that you must use the entire quote, even if you break it up into pieces to respond to it.

I see. Well, one thing for sure, people can go back and see the original post, so they will know if it has been played around with.

As far as power to the mods, yes we have many things we mod and have to make a decision on which way to call something, but we also have the rules to go by as well.

 

[Darkwind]

I can't remember if I started a thread about his before, but I think there should be a forum rule against people editing out part of a person's quote when using it in a reply. I see people do it all the time in order to use it to their advantage and make the quote look out of context. You'll have people argue that they only want to reply to part of the quote... but why can't you do that and still quote the whole post? Nothing is stopping you. It actually takes more effort to go in and edit out part of the quote than just to quote the whole thing.

So some people like to break up quotes and answer it in sections, point by point. I get that, but that is not the same thing as what I'm complaining about here.

I've been told that it is against the rules for someone to edit someone's quote in a reply to make it out of context, BUT it is on a situation by situation basis and therefor is up to the judgment of whatever mod that so happens to read your ticket. There really is no need to even do that, just make it so that it is against the rules to edit someone's quote in a replay...get rid of the whole idea of everything being a judgment call and a crap shoot on what mod you get reviewing the situation.

I highlight the part I am replying to, but leave the entire post as it was.

 

[Lewdog]

I do not know as a fact atm but I think editing quotes of others is a no no.

I was told it was only against the rules if it is reported and the mod that reviews the report agrees that the way the quote was edited changes the context of the quote. So it is a case by case basis... which I think is a wrong way to handle the situation, and puts too much power and burden in the hands of mods. It would just be simple to say that you must use the entire quote, even if you break it up into pieces to respond to it.

The way quoting is handled in this software, with the accumulation of previous quotes, it gets very cumbersome very quickly if you don't edit out quoted material that isn't directly relevant to your reply.

It's not even about that. It's about people taking a simple quote, and then taking the extra time to edit out a large part of the quote to a single line or two... of which most of the time takes it out of context. Even in large quote chains the majority of the chain gets condensed to nothing. And last time I checked, people aren't getting charged a fee for the number of words in their posts... otherwise emilynghiem would be poor as hell.

 

[Lewdog]

I do not know as a fact atm but I think editing quotes of others is a no no.

I was told it was only against the rules if it is reported and the mod that reviews the report agrees that the way the quote was edited changes the context of the quote. So it is a case by case basis... which I think is a wrong way to handle the situation, and puts too much power and burden in the hands of mods. It would just be simple to say that you must use the entire quote, even if you break it up into pieces to respond to it.

I see. Well, one thing for sure, people can go back and see the original post, so they will know if it has been played around with.

As far as power to the mods, yes we have many things we mod and have to make a decision on which way to call something, but we also have the rules to go by as well.

But you know as well as I do, not very many people take the time to go back the the original posts to read it if they didn't pay attention to it in the first place, to make sure that the new post is being quoted like it was meant to be. They simple read the post and what is quoted in the post and take it for what it says there.

 

[Muhammed]

I can't remember if I started a thread about his before, but I think there should be a forum rule against people editing out part of a person's quote when using it in a reply.

I disagree. Oftentimes only quoting part of a post is all you need to destroy another's argument. You don't even have to bother reading the rest of it, let alone promulgate the drivel of some scatterbrained intoxicated windbag.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I do not know as a fact atm but I think editing quotes of others is a no no.

I was told it was only against the rules if it is reported and the mod that reviews the report agrees that the way the quote was edited changes the context of the quote. So it is a case by case basis... which I think is a wrong way to handle the situation, and puts too much power and burden in the hands of mods. It would just be simple to say that you must use the entire quote, even if you break it up into pieces to respond to it.

The way quoting is handled in this software, with the accumulation of previous quotes, it gets very cumbersome very quickly if you don't edit out quoted material that isn't directly relevant to your reply.

It's not even about that. It's about people taking a simple quote, and then taking the extra time to edit out a large part of the quote to a single line or two... of which most of the time takes it out of context. Even in large quote chains the majority of the chain gets condensed to nothing. And last time I checked, people aren't getting charged a fee for the number of words in their posts... otherwise emilynghiem would be poor as hell.

Is that what your complaining about? I thought you meant adding words to change them.


I don't see what the big deal is to shorten them. I never do because it's a pain on a phone.

 

[Kat]

I do not know as a fact atm but I think editing quotes of others is a no no.

I was told it was only against the rules if it is reported and the mod that reviews the report agrees that the way the quote was edited changes the context of the quote. So it is a case by case basis... which I think is a wrong way to handle the situation, and puts too much power and burden in the hands of mods. It would just be simple to say that you must use the entire quote, even if you break it up into pieces to respond to it.

I see. Well, one thing for sure, people can go back and see the original post, so they will know if it has been played around with.

As far as power to the mods, yes we have many things we mod and have to make a decision on which way to call something, but we also have the rules to go by as well.

But you know as well as I do, not very many people take the time to go back the the original posts to read it if they didn't pay attention to it in the first place, to make sure that the new post is being quoted like it was meant to be. They simple read the post and what is quoted in the post and take it for what it says there.

Okay. Then all I can suggest is that you report the post(s)

 

[Lewdog]

I do not know as a fact atm but I think editing quotes of others is a no no.

I was told it was only against the rules if it is reported and the mod that reviews the report agrees that the way the quote was edited changes the context of the quote. So it is a case by case basis... which I think is a wrong way to handle the situation, and puts too much power and burden in the hands of mods. It would just be simple to say that you must use the entire quote, even if you break it up into pieces to respond to it.

I see. Well, one thing for sure, people can go back and see the original post, so they will know if it has been played around with.

As far as power to the mods, yes we have many things we mod and have to make a decision on which way to call something, but we also have the rules to go by as well.

But you know as well as I do, not very many people take the time to go back the the original posts to read it if they didn't pay attention to it in the first place, to make sure that the new post is being quoted like it was meant to be. They simple read the post and what is quoted in the post and take it for what it says there.

Okay. Then all I can suggest is that you report the post(s)

But what's the point? The way the rules are set up it is an absolute crap shoot. First it depends on if you get a mod that likes you or not, and then it comes down to total opinion of whether the way the quote was edited out if it changes the context of the quote compared to the total initial post.

That's the whole point of this thread, why even have a rule set up that way? Why have a rule that you have to worry about who gets your ticket and then the result be based upon something that is totally subjective. Just make a rule that is cut and dry. It will make everything much easier at the end of the day.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's not even about that. It's about people taking a simple quote, and then taking the extra time to edit out a large part of the quote to a single line or two... of which most of the time takes it out of context. Even in large quote chains the majority of the chain gets condensed to nothing. And last time I checked, people aren't getting charged a fee for the number of words in their posts... otherwise emilynghiem would be poor as hell.

Here's a perfect example of why it is sometimes necessary to edit down quoted material. As your message was displayed to me, I could not, at a glance, even see the part to which you were responding. All that shows, until one clicks the “Click to expland” link, is old stuff, no longer directly relevant to your reply.

 

[heil hitler]

Do not edit posts of others

I totally get your point now.