Maybe a new Moderator or 2 for OT?

[MobBoss]

Just as it would be a no brainer that you take this up via PM rather than in the public forum? It goes both ways....

I did. Right off the bat I sent a pm right after I reported it. I got a reply that was an excuse/justification.

However, it was so very nice of you to simply assume I didnt send a pm. Thanks.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

I did. Right off the bat I sent a pm right after I reported it. I got a reply that was an excuse/justification.

However, it was so very nice of you to simply assume I didnt send a pm. Thanks.

He meant take the discussion you're having here to PM.

But I just don't see the problem in obviously editing a quote to support your point.

 

[MobBoss]

He meant take the discussion you're having here to PM.

But I just don't see the problem in obviously editing a quote to support your point.

Because its being done in a manner that misrepresents my original quote. All I am asking here is for my quote to remain as I typed it if the quote is going to say 'MobBoss posted:'. I have no problem if someone wants to make their own original comment in reply, but if you retype my quote to say something other than what I intended, or even something that I would never say, then I have a problem with that.

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: OK - that's enough. I'm not passing judgement on this issue, but I am passing judgement on the appropriateness of threadjacking this thread to discuss it.

 

[azzaman333]

I see nothing wrong with Rik's post.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I agree with MobBoss and would like to nominate him as a mod.

No actually I disagree. Mods have the unfortunate position of having to catherd huge egos to comply with some lose rules, for free. If you also take away some of their posting rights, well, good luck finding mods, because the job just gotten really unatractive.

Usually the mods around here are reasonable people, and if not, you can always contact anotherm mod. I don't see the problem.

edit: Hit reply from one page back. Just saw Ainwood's post. Nevermind :/

edit 2: Never been on this side of the forum. Nice curtains.

 

[MrCynical]

Unusual as it is for me to say this, I agree with MobBoss on this one. When a passage of text is attributed to someone as a quote it must be word for word what they said - no adjustments however they're highlighted, no omissions. It is particularly unacceptable to reverse the meaning of a person's statement, whether by altering the text or by selectively removing words.

If a quote is attributed to a specific user, it must be their words, otherwise you are simply impersonating them. Even with a little disclaimer that it's a "fix" under a post (which frankly isn't a very appropriate attiude from a mod to start with), people skiming through the thread are likely to believe that MobBoss originally said that. There really cannot be any leaway on what is permitted in quote tags, since it leaves the misquoted user open to accusations of making statements which are probably the opposite of their viewpoint, and may well be offensive.

 

[Mise]

I thought we had a rule that forbade the deliberate changing of a quote?

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: What part of 'its not appropriat to threadjack this to discuss that issue' did you guys not get?

Thread closed.

Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889