NEW UNIVERSAL RULE--PLEASE READ!

[_Dr. Shades]

by the way, I have a long-standing personal practice of charitably fixing a quotee's simple spelling mistakes. I hate it when folks [sic] another poster as a way of disparaging them. If the person wrote "their" instead of "there", rather than [sic] them, or just leave it there like a sore thumb, I've usually just corrected it and moved on. While my quotation is technically no longer exactly what the person wrote, it has always been exactly what the person obviously meant to say.

That would be fine, because it's legitimately charitable and not meant to belittle the quote-ee.

Is my practice something this rule intends to prevent?

Nope, your practice is fine.

The last time I paraphrased someone, I used the quote intact, and did the paraphrase below.

Paraphrasing outside the quote tags is perfectly fine, because it's not deceptive.

I never saw any rebuke on that.

Nor will you.

Do we have to use [snip] or can we use .....?

You can use either or both.

I was also wondering if my attempt at humor below would be breaking the rules??

Yes.

Is it that the quote function is reserved for real quotes only from now on, so no fake quotes??

Yes.

and would that include the example above?

Yes.

[_palerobber]

Do we have to use [snip] or can we use .....?

You can use either or both.

for what it's worth, using [...] is better than just ... because then it's clear the ellipses belong to the quoter not the quotee.

[_why me]

Since my texts have been altered in the quotes feature, I support this new rule. It usually happens to the defenders of the faith.

[_palerobber]

for what it's worth, using [...] is better than just ... because then it's clear the ellipses belong to the quoter not the quotee.

though i guess ambiguity can still arise if someone quotes my [...] as above.

it would be nice if there were a pair of characters you could alternative between with each nesting to keep things clear, like "in a 'quote like "this" one' here."

[_ludwigm]

The last comment of the Free ludwigm! thread:

viewtopic.php?p=635700#p635700

[_lulu]

I sometimes correct minor errors, but have been called on it. As much as a grammar cop as Shades is, it still isn't appreciated. The last time I paraphrased someone, I used the quote intact, and did the paraphrase below. I never saw any rebuke on that.


Do we have to use [snip] or can we use .....?

As much as I hate to give a universal, and probably uniformed, opinion, the modern trend in history is to let the "mistake" stand, without signalling, and, if necessary for clarity, make a bracketed addition. Damn, if that sentence had been longer, I could have been Droopy.

[_Tim the Enchanter]

I, for one, suport this new rule and will adhere to it strictly.

[_Molok]

Tim Brings up an interesting point. What about changing people's names but leaving their quotes intact? I've seen several posters do this to get in digs at each other. Is this kind of thing like what I've done below affected by the new rule, or no?

Dear participants:

Certain goings-on have convinced me that it's prudent to add a new rule to our list of Universal Rules. Behold our new Rule #8:

8. When quoting another poster, do not alter his or her actual words. Just leave them intact.

This rule has been implemented for three reasons:

1. Many people enjoy altering certain of a person's words within a quote for comedic or humorous effect. Unfortunately, the quote-ee rarely finds it as funny.
2. Other times this is done in order to capture the perceived subtext or to otherwise abbreviate. Unfortunately, the subtext, as verbalized by the quoter, is rarely charitable to the quote-ee.
3. It can be deceptive, because sometimes other readers scan forward, miss the original quote, then mistakenly assume that the quote-ee really did type the altered quote as opposed to the real one.

It's okay to abbreviate the quote by using ellipses or by typing [SNIP!] where necessary, but please leave the actual words themselves 100% intact. Now, before you get mad about this or assume that I'm hamstringing you, please keep in mind that you can still continue doing what you've always done, just as long as you don't surround whatever you alter with the "[ quote ]" and "[ /quote ]" tags anymore.

Thank you for your consideration.

[_Dr. Shades]

Tim Brings up an interesting point. What about changing people's names but leaving their quotes intact? I've seen several posters do this to get in digs at each other. Is this kind of thing like what I've done below affected by the new rule, or no?

Dear participants:[SNIP!]

If it falls under the rubric of a personal attack, then it should be either edited or moved to the Telestial Forum, just like any other personal attack.

[_Darth J]

Is this okay, Shades?

Since my texts that invariably demonstrate specific ignorance of the religion I claim to affiliate with have been altered in the quotes feature, I support this new rule. It usually happens to people who say punishingly stupid things.