Posts: 572
Threads: 65
Joined: Feb 2009
Good afternoon! In preparation for the return of the Debate section of the site, the following two items have been reinstated as site-wide rules effective immediately:
- Civility: Remain civil and respectful. Character attacks, stereotyping, rude behavior, and otherwise hateful content doesn't belong here. Do not post messages which are threatening, harassing, or intimidating towards another person - including threats of litigation or legal action.
- Trolling: Don't post with the intent to cause negative reactions, to anger others, or to intentionally mislead or confuse. Don't abuse the quoting, editing, and reporting features through means such as false attribution, modifying context, and false or retalitory reporting.
(These rules were temporarily removed from the site-wide rules on 10/13/2013).
Thanks,
Kam
Posts: 22,605
Threads: 795
Joined: Jan 2011
What about posts that a member PURPOSEFULLY makes up... and FALSELY attributes to another member? I have reported the offending post twice... and NOTHING has been done about it.
Posts: 8,021
Threads: 190
Joined: Sep 2012
I believe that falls under abusing the quoting feature through false attribution.
Quote:Trolling: Don't post with the intent to cause negative reactions, to anger others, or to intentionally mislead or confuse. Don't abuse the quoting, editing, and reporting features through means such as false attribution, modifying context, and false or retalitory reporting.
Posts: 22,605
Threads: 795
Joined: Jan 2011
(03-14-2014, 09:49 AM)csrowan Wrote: I believe that falls under abusing the quoting feature through false attribution.
Quote:Trolling: Don't post with the intent to cause negative reactions, to anger others, or to intentionally mislead or confuse. Don't abuse the quoting, editing, and reporting features through means such as false attribution, modifying context, and false or retalitory reporting.
I realize that. My point was that the offending post has been reported twice in two days... and NOTHING has been done.
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
My posts were changed twice that I know of...
Posts: 18,101
Threads: 859
Joined: Feb 2009
(03-14-2014, 09:58 AM)Valuesize Wrote: My posts were changed twice that I know of...
Valuesize and Scrapper, do you mind linking the changed posts so I can see them.
The most common violation of the rule against false attribution was from posters that prefaced the changes in other peoples posts with "Hey I fixed that for you." I had done it a couple of time myself until I realized it violated the rules. In any case, I don't do it no mo. Really. 
Posts: 41,855
Threads: 560
Joined: Mar 2009
(03-14-2014, 09:49 AM)csrowan Wrote: I believe that falls under abusing the quoting feature through false attribution.
Quote:Trolling: Don't post with the intent to cause negative reactions, to anger others, or to intentionally mislead or confuse. Don't abuse the quoting, editing, and reporting features through means such as false attribution, modifying context, and false or retalitory reporting.
Is it really misleading. What I mean is that does anyone actually believe something that was posted by another was what YOU posted.
Because I've seen someone complain about People quoting another, changing some words and then saying .. fixed it for ya.
When anyone reading it knew full well that the original quote was changed.
Posts: 8,021
Threads: 190
Joined: Sep 2012
My false attribution violations were back in the days of anarchy. Rules weren't being enforced, and there was a very persistent troll. I would post immediately after the worst trolling remarks, with a quoted post attributed to that user saying "ha, ha! I'm an asshat!"
I've never really objected to the "fixed that for you" quotes, as long as the "fixes" are obviously marked.
Maybe we should start saying "Are you sure you didn't mean:" then follow up with an unattributed quote.
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
(03-14-2014, 10:23 AM)cletus1 Wrote: Valuesize and Scrapper, do you mind linking the changed posts so I can see them.
http://www.roguevalleyforum.com/forum/sh...#pid333757
I don't remember where the other one is but it is just like this one, removing my photo and putting in a different one. All the regular posters would know what's up but I don't like someone new getting the wrong idea of me.
Posts: 41,855
Threads: 560
Joined: Mar 2009
(03-14-2014, 10:43 AM)Valuesize Wrote: (03-14-2014, 10:23 AM)cletus1 Wrote: Valuesize and Scrapper, do you mind linking the changed posts so I can see them.
http://www.roguevalleyforum.com/forum/sh...#pid333757
I don't remember where the other one is but it is just like this one, removing my photo and putting in a different one. All the regular posters would know what's up but I don't like someone new getting the wrong idea of me.
Yeah that seems definitely wrong to me.
Posts: 22,605
Threads: 795
Joined: Jan 2011
(03-14-2014, 10:23 AM)cletus1 Wrote: (03-14-2014, 09:58 AM)Valuesize Wrote: My posts were changed twice that I know of...
Valuesize and Scrapper, do you mind linking the changed posts so I can see them.
The most common violation of the rule against false attribution was from posters that prefaced the changes in other peoples posts with "Hey I fixed that for you." I had done it a couple of time myself until I realized it violated the rules. In any case, I don't do it no mo. Really.
http://www.roguevalleyforum.com/forum/sh...#pid334641
Posts: 8,021
Threads: 190
Joined: Sep 2012
(03-14-2014, 11:16 AM)tvguy Wrote: (03-14-2014, 10:43 AM)Valuesize Wrote: (03-14-2014, 10:23 AM)cletus1 Wrote: Valuesize and Scrapper, do you mind linking the changed posts so I can see them.
http://www.roguevalleyforum.com/forum/sh...#pid333757
I don't remember where the other one is but it is just like this one, removing my photo and putting in a different one. All the regular posters would know what's up but I don't like someone new getting the wrong idea of me.
Yeah that seems definitely wrong to me.
You could always report it. 
Posts: 41,855
Threads: 560
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,021
Threads: 190
Joined: Sep 2012
Well, they've been deleted. Not "[redacted]" though. Just gone, as if they never existed.
Posts: 1,087
Threads: 25
Joined: Mar 2014
So, I have posted on the Religion topic, and my posts are, under review? Is this not a place of free dialogue and exchange of ideas?
Posts: 1,087
Threads: 25
Joined: Mar 2014
My goodness. I posted here at the help desk, and still, under review? Who is reviewing what I have to say, and why should my words be subjected so?
I was mistaken to think ideas were welcome.
Posts: 12,291
Threads: 249
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
(03-15-2014, 10:36 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: My goodness. I posted here at the help desk, and still, under review? Who is reviewing what I have to say, and why should my words be subjected so?
I was mistaken to think ideas were welcome.
Most likely because your first post was only a link. 
Posts: 1,087
Threads: 25
Joined: Mar 2014
(03-15-2014, 11:04 PM)Tiamat Wrote: I'd welcome them.
Thank you.
Posts: 1,087
Threads: 25
Joined: Mar 2014
(03-15-2014, 11:05 PM)Valuesize Wrote: (03-15-2014, 10:36 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: My goodness. I posted here at the help desk, and still, under review? Who is reviewing what I have to say, and why should my words be subjected so?
I was mistaken to think ideas were welcome.
Most likely because your first post was only a link.
Perhaps that was it.
|
