Split from: Rethinking the AI "problem"

[canpakes]

It’s not allowed. Have respect for the wishes of the board’s proprietor and check your issues at the door.

From the same post:

“It's perfectly fine to disagree with a request we make, but if you keep doing what you were requested not to do, or you start a game of "please don't eat the daisies" with us, that gets us into territory where we will at least consider altering privileges.”

Thanks. -c-

Leave it, panny. I did exactly what Shades and Res asked. I notated my edit. That is clearly within the guidelines of the so-called rule which, as you know, is not included in the actual rules of this forum. So, get out of it, you are arguing. You do not have a role here. Bye, panny.

There’s no clear ‘notation’ discussed for this forum and there’s is no need to insert text substituting for what the original author wrote. If you need to truncate a quote, use an ellipsis. That’s pretty standard. What you did is not.

If you’re just looking for a fight, and cannot contain your urge to do so, then feel free to test this. However, results may not be to your liking.

Thanks! -c-

[Whiskey]

Leave it, panny. I did exactly what Shades and Res asked. I notated my edit. That is clearly within the guidelines of the so-called rule which, as you know, is not included in the actual rules of this forum. So, get out of it, you are arguing. You do not have a role here. Bye, panny.

There’s no clear ‘notation’ discussed for this forum and there’s is no need to insert text substituting for what the original author wrote. If you need to truncate a quote, use an ellipsis. That’s pretty standard. What you did is not.

If you’re just looking for a fight, and cannot contain your urge to do so, then feel free to test this. However, results may not be to your liking.

Thanks! -c-

Shades and Xeno,

I want to clarify what is actually at issue here, because this has drifted from moderation into argument over a distinction that does not exist.

I did not alter the substance of Gad’s quote. I did not insert words and attribute them to another poster. I indicated an omission using bracket notation: “[blah blah blah].” (that may not be the exact words, but pretty damn close). That is standard editorial notation. It serves the same function as an ellipsis. Both explicitly signal omitted material. Neither misrepresents the author’s words. Neither fabricates content.

An ellipsis is not a different category of action. It is simply a different visual convention for omission. Treating one as permissible and the other as prohibited is not a rule-based distinction. It is a preference being enforced after the fact.

If the board’s position is that only ellipses may be used to indicate omissions, that is fine. But that needs to be stated as an actual rule, not retroactively imposed through panny's pursued argument (no pun intended, but still funny). As it stands, I complied with the guidance previously given: clearly indicate that a quote has been altered or abbreviated. I did exactly that.

What is not acceptable is framing this as deception or misconduct when the notation was explicit and non-substantive. There was no attempt to mislead or paraphrase Gad’s words. This is not a matter of tone or intent. It is a simple question of whether clearly marked omissions are allowed. They always have been.

If there is now a new standard, I am happy to follow it. But it should be articulated plainly and applied consistently, not debated thread-by-thread while one moderator is also actively arguing in the same discussion.

I’m asking for clarity, not conflict.

[canpakes]

There’s no clear ‘notation’ discussed for this forum and there’s is no need to insert text substituting for what the original author wrote. If you need to truncate a quote, use an ellipsis. That’s pretty standard. What you did is not.

If you’re just looking for a fight, and cannot contain your urge to do so, then feel free to test this. However, results may not be to your liking.

Thanks! -c-

Shades and Xeno,

I want to clarify what is actually at issue here, because this has drifted from moderation into argument over a distinction that does not exist.

I did not alter the substance of Gad’s quote. I did not insert words and attribute them to another poster. I indicated an omission using bracket notation: “[blah blah blah].” (that may not be the exact words, but pretty damn close). That is standard editorial notation. It serves the same function as an ellipsis. Both explicitly signal omitted material. Neither misrepresents the author’s words. Neither fabricates content.

Inserting your own words within the confines of the quotation of another board participant is not necessary. An ellipsis serves the purpose. Why would anything else, or what you did/wrote specifically, be necessary?

This isn’t ’retroactive’ as you claim given that the post I linked to is from years back and given that this guidance has been pretty consistently applied for years, although that post also refers to you directly, so none of this is a surprise to you.

This conversation is happening precisely because you decided to ‘test limits’ with Res before, as documented in his post linked upstream.

Your insertion serves no purpose except to generate confusion or to attempt an insult of sorts to the quoted individual. This is an odd thing for you to be fighting for, considering your simultaneous pleadings elsewhere in this thread for civil discourse.

I’m asking for clarity, not conflict.

Good choice. You should lead with that from the start, if you’re again attempting to test the same limits that you tested years ago.

[Whiskey]

Shades and Xeno,

I want to clarify what is actually at issue here, because this has drifted from moderation into argument over a distinction that does not exist.

I did not alter the substance of Gad’s quote. I did not insert words and attribute them to another poster. I indicated an omission using bracket notation: “[blah blah blah].” (that may not be the exact words, but pretty damn close). That is standard editorial notation. It serves the same function as an ellipsis. Both explicitly signal omitted material. Neither misrepresents the author’s words. Neither fabricates content.

Inserting whatever you want to type within the confines of the quotation is not necessary. An ellipsis serves the purpose. Why would anything else, or what you did/wrote specifically, be necessary?

This isn’t ’retroactive’ as you claim given that the post I linked to is from years back and that guidance has been pretty consistently applied, although that post also refers to you directly, so none of this is a surprise to you.

This conversation is happening precisely because you decided to ‘test limits’ with Res before, as documented in his post linked upstream.

Your insertion serves no purpose except to generate confusion or to attempt an insult of sorts to the quoted individual. This is an odd thing for you to be fighting for, considering your simultaneous pleadings elsewhere in this thread for civil discourse.

I’m asking for clarity, not conflict.

Good choice. You should lead with that from the start, if you’re again attempting to test the same limits that you tested years ago.

On the one hand, I am indeed arguing with you now because you insist on arguing. On the other hand, I am arguing with you, panny, not you as a moderator. LOL!!!

I am not testing any limits, you liar. Again, you assert that I am doing something that I am not doing, relying, again, on your imaginary facts from your priesthood imagination. Why do you insist on this, panny?

Do you always use an ellipsis when you omit text from a quote? No. You don't. So clearly that is not a rule and it never has been. Omitting text without an ellipsis, or brackets, or a note, can alter the intent of a quote by removing the context. Is that against the rules, because you do that, right?

So just back down here, panny boy. Hang tight until the adult moderators can provide the actual rule and determine whether an elipsis is required, as you say, LOL, and other notation that provides the same context is allowed or disallowed.

How about we make a deal panny? If ellipses are required for omitted text, and you have followed the rule perfectly, I will leave the board forever. If ellipses are not required for omitting text, you step down as a moderator? Cool?

[canpakes]

Do you always use an ellipsis when you omit text from a quote? No. You don't. So clearly that is not a rule and it never has been. Omitting text without an ellipsis, or brackets, or a note, can alter the intent of a quote by removing the context. Is that against the rules, because you do that, right?

Nice try at moving the goalpost. I haven’t suggested that an ellipsis is a board rule.

The issue is your insertion of your own unnecessary text into the quotes of others.

Ironically, this probably wouldn’t even be an issue if you hadn’t made it one years ago by trying to abuse the practice.

This isn’t an argument on my part. I’m directing you to your own past history and the conclusion of Shades and the mod team at that time. Your issue is with your own behavior.

[Whiskey]

Do you always use an ellipsis when you omit text from a quote? No. You don't. So clearly that is not a rule and it never has been. Omitting text without an ellipsis, or brackets, or a note, can alter the intent of a quote by removing the context. Is that against the rules, because you do that, right?

Nice try at moving the goalpost. I haven’t suggested that an ellipsis is a board rule.

The issue is your insertion of your own unnecessary text into the quotes of others.

Ironically, this probably wouldn’t even be an issue if you hadn’t made it one years ago by trying to abuse the practice.

This isn’t an argument on my part. I’m directing you to your own past history and the conclusion of Shades and the mod team. Your issue is with your own behavior.

Oh, so you can omit text without an ellipsis. And that is way better than brackets and a note. And for that, you want to make an issue of an issue from years ago. Years ago, my edits were in response to edits of my posts, correct? panny, just shut the “F” up and let Shades and Xeno decide this.

You won't take the deal because you are antagonizing and wrong. No worries. If "[blah blah blah]" is an unacceptable omission, but your blank omissions are acceptable, and you remain as moderator, I will delete my account and never return. That has to be an offer you can't refuse, right? Two clarifications from Shades or Xeno, and you remaining as a moderator, and you will never have to hear from me again. This is your chance, panny.

1: "[blah blah blah]" is an unacceptable notation for a text omission within a quote? Yes/No
2: panny's partial omission of text within a quote without any notation is acceptable? Yes/No
3: panny is a moderator on this board? Yes/No

Three Yes results and Shades can delete my account and block my IP forever. I will insist on it. Deal?

[canpakes]

If "[blah blah blah]" is an unacceptable omission, but your blank omissions are acceptable, and you remain as moderator, I will delete my account and never return.

: D

I think that this is the third time now that you’ve made this promise. Mayan/Cultellus/Binger/Whiskey, probably no one cares if you make this threat. I certainly don’t. All I’ve ever hoped for was for you to be able to converse here like a normal adult. Beyond that, your fate is yours to decide on.

Anyhow, I’m good with whatever Shade’s allows, and I appreciate the laugh to finish off the evening. Sleep well.

[Whiskey]

If "[blah blah blah]" is an unacceptable omission, but your blank omissions are acceptable, and you remain as moderator, I will delete my account and never return.

: D

I think that this is the third time now that you’ve made this promise. Mayan/Cultellus/Binger/Whiskey, probably no one cares if you make this threat. I certainly don’t. All I’ve ever hoped for was for you to be able to converse here like a normal adult. Beyond that, your fate is yours to decide on.

Anyhow, I’m good with whatever Shade’s allows, and I appreciate the laugh to finish off the evening. Sleep well.

Lobby hard, panny. Lobby hard. If you are correct about the rules, I am out of here. It is not a promise, it is an offer or a deal. Meet the conditions — I am gone.

I converse fine here when you are not being a b**** and using the moderator levers to "antagonize one or more members" of the forum.

Let's ramp this up even more. Make it easier for you. If Xeno or Shades confirms that someone other than you reported my post prior to you redlining it, I will absolutely have my account deleted even if the other answers are not all Yes.

Sleep well indeed.

[Gadianton]

Have you seen me saying what I believe you believe MG believes?

No, but I've seen you saying what you believe Malkie believes. Example:

And it also seems that your answer is for someone else to do something. So you are not part of your own answer to this unknown problem. Have I got this right?

It's a little rich, Whiskey, given that your complaint about me was, "Nobody gives flying ***** what you believe another person believes".

The text you quoted from me in that complaint was merely summarizing what I thought Malkie was trying to say in the OP. I was doing the same thing you were, restating what I thought the OP meant to say.

If you want an example of me saying what I believe MG believes, then check out the "crooked lines" thread. Given MG originated the thread, I've tried to ascertain what MG means in the thread. Here's the thing: When a person posts something, they are codifying their beliefs in written language. When another person reads the post, they are trying to understand what the post means, and thereby what the person who wrote the post believes. If the respondent takes the time to summarize the post in their own words, as you did with Malkie, it automatically entails trying to "say what another person believes". That's just a normal part of conversation.

[Whiskey]

Have you seen me saying what I believe you believe MG believes?

No, but I've seen you saying what you believe Malkie believes. Example:

And it also seems that your answer is for someone else to do something. So you are not part of your own answer to this unknown problem. Have I got this right?

It's a little rich, Whiskey, given that your complaint about me was, "Nobody gives flying ***** what you believe another person believes".

The text you quoted from me in that complaint was merely summarizing what I thought Malkie was trying to say in the OP. I was doing the same thing you were, restating what I thought the OP meant to say.

If you want an example of me saying what I believe MG believes, then check out the "crooked lines" thread. Given MG originated the thread, I've tried to ascertain what MG means in the thread. Here's the thing: When a person posts something, they are codifying their beliefs in written language. When another person reads the post, they are trying to understand what the post means, and thereby what the person who wrote the post believes. If the respondent takes the time to summarize the post in their own words, as you did with Malkie, it automatically entails trying to "say what another person believes". That's just a normal part of conversation.

Gad. I didn't even finish reading your post which ia why i omittes the text. Wolf wolf wolf whatever. Your belief in anyone's belief, regardless of context, is pointless now.