Reply with quote

[Gaggsy]

A couple of times now I've seen posts quoted where the text has been edited and the new poster has written underneath "Fixed that for you".

Obviously, this is extremely witty and hilarious (or not), but should it be allowed? Should posters be allowed to put things in quotes and then change the meaning of the original?

Here's an example from a recent topic (viewtopic.php?f=29&t=3095&start=20 ) in Beerpig's Snug:

So people are poor because of "poor life choices"? It's an interesting point of view.

There are plenty of examples of people who have had every chance to better their lot, and have not made the effort. If this tramp in Sweden can die with a million in the bank from litter-picking and living within his means, than there is no reason why a less extreme saving effort might not be feasible for anyone.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262496/Secret-millionaire-Relatives-tramp-1m-recycling-old-tin-cans-settle-inheritance-feud.html

Would you extend your philosophy to all poor people? Following your argument to its logical conclusion you would scrap the welfare state entirely, on the basis that it only encourages fecklessness. Is that your belief? If not, how do you decide between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor?

Fortunately, the welfare state is currently unsustainable, otherwise you would not be touting for more funding, so I need do nothing other than wait for its metamorphosis into a more realistic and hard-headed system. Herbert Stein's Law says "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop."

And if you don't agree that elderly people who can't afford care home fees should receive a state subsidy what would you recommend for them? Perhaps the reintroduction of the workhouse, so they could at least try to earn their keep? Or maybe humane disposal?

I would recommend we all start saving for old age, and start tapering the handouts over a long period of time to minimise impact and allow people time to adjust to the need to take responsibility for their own life. What I absolutely wouldn't do is keep feeding the welfare beast with new taxes.

People have a remarkable facility to re-assess their attitude to saving and taking ownership of their lives when the alternative of mooching from hard-pressed working taxpayers is prevented

Fixed that for you.

[PinkDalek]

A couple of times now I've seen posts quoted where the text has been edited and the new poster has written underneath "Fixed that for you".

Hard to stop, unless the post is reported and even then I imagine most mods would let it pass..

In this instance the poster made it clear he had amended the original so that, in itself, doesn't appear to be a great problem. It is a method used by quite a few on internet discussion boards but might be considered by some to be somewhat passé.

Worse would be some subtle changes which had not been acknowledged.

[swill453]

Obviously, this is extremely witty and hilarious (or not), but should it be allowed? Should posters be allowed to put things in quotes and then change the meaning of the original?

Well the boards would become unreadable if every quote had to include the entire original post.

And having a computer programme distinguish between:
- a bit of judicious chopping, and
- something that's had its meaning changed
is extremely hard to do.

So hard that it's really not worth even trying (IMO).

Scott.

[Raptor]

Depends. First the "poster" can modify the post up to 10 minutes after submitting it, so they can correct it themselves (I add an "edit" note to say why in case someone has read it and comes back and notices the changes). After that only Moderators can "edit" and there is usually a very good reason why. I remember a thread I was trying to follow and the posters did not use quotes just cut and paste and I found it almost impossible to follow without keep going back and forwards, so added "quotes" to the posts to make it clear who was saying what... But I did add a MOD box to say why I did it.

I am sure it is not supposed to be "witty and hilarious (or not)" but helpful.

Raptor.

[melonfool]

Depends. First the "poster" can modify the post up to 10 minutes after submitting it, so they can correct it themselves (I add an "edit" note to say why in case someone has read it and comes back and notices the changes). After that only Moderators can "edit" and there is usually a very good reason why. I remember a thread I was trying to follow and the posters did not use quotes just cut and paste and I found it almost impossible to follow without keep going back and forwards, so added "quotes" to the posts to make it clear who was saying what... But I did add a MOD box to say why I did it.

I am sure it is not supposed to be "witty and hilarious (or not)" but helpful.

Raptor.

I think you have missed the point of the question Raptor.

I was also uncomfortable with the issue the OP has quoted. I don't think we should 'allow' people to change other people's text but, as has been pointed out, unless it is reported we cannot stop it.

It was also possible on TMF so it's not a new thing, the bit that is new if the 'quotes box' software. Previously we just quoted in italics.

It's a bit of an Internet 'thing' to change someone's post, amend or change it to the meaning you prefer and say 'there, fixed that for you' - as long as this suffix is added everyone knows what has gone on (and, as PD rightly says, can disregard it as being a little passe!).

Hopefully it is a trend that will not catch on too happily here, where we seem to prefer a higher standard of debate and actual analysis and rebuttal of people' points than just school playground tactics of making it look as if our own point is more meritorious.

Mel

[PinkDalek]

It was nothing to do with the OP having needed to edit his original.

...
I am sure it is not supposed to be "witty and hilarious (or not)" but helpful.

Raptor.

It was changed:

From CK's: People have a remarkable facility to re-assess their quality of life when the alternative is death.

To AP's: People have a remarkable facility to re-assess their attitude to saving and taking ownership of their lives when the alternative of mooching from hard-pressed working taxpayers is prevented

Note some of CK's original words are missing in their entirety. I've put them in bold. So despite the italics in the reply, which pertain to show the changes, other amendments were made.

I don't think the changes were attempting to be helpful. They were putting a different perspective into the discussion.

[PinkDalek]

It's a bit of an Internet 'thing' to change someone's post, amend or change it to the meaning you prefer and say 'there, fixed that for you' - as long as this suffix is added everyone knows what has gone on (and, as PD rightly says, can disregard it as being a little passe!).

Glad you didn't put what I said in quotes, as that is not precisely what I said.

[Lootman]

I don't think the changes were attempting to be helpful. They were putting a different perspective into the discussion.

Depends what you mean by "helpful". Adding a perspective can be helpful. For instance, if CK stated A and then someone points out that B logically follows from A, then it is legitimate to attack B on the basis that if A entails B and B can be shown to be false, then that proves A is false as well (reductio ad absurdum).

Yet I recall one occasion at TMF where I successfully refuted someone's point in this manner and then my post was removed for "misrepresenting" the other party. Apparently that particular moderator did not understand the logical connection and saw my comment as a deliberate misquoting of another.

A more blatant manipulation is simply truncating a quote, thereby removing the context and making it appear that a valid point is invalid. That's happened to me a couple of times here already. But i don't think it's a moderator's job to spot that - too much work. It's my job to spot it and, in that case, I merely call the other party out on their tactic rather than report the post as naughtiness.

[PinkDalek]

I don't think the changes were attempting to be helpful. They were putting a different perspective into the discussion.

Depends what you mean by "helpful".

I was replying to Raptor who seemed to think the amendments were made due to an error in CK's original.

[Clitheroekid]

I was also uncomfortable with the issue the OP has quoted. I don't think we should 'allow' people to change other people's text but, as has been pointed out, unless it is reported we cannot stop it.

As the author of the post in question I found the `Fixed that for you' response childish, but I didn't bother reporting it as I felt the response said more about the author than I could have got away with!

I appreciate that others might object to their words being `edited' in this way, and if they do they can report it, but in general I think it's better not to.

There are about half a dozen posters - I think of them as `the usual suspects' - with what might be termed as `robust' attitudes, but so long as they refrain from outright abuse I think that they should, in the interests of free expression, be allowed to have their say without unsolicited intervention from the mods. In any case, such intervention would only tend to feed what sometimes appear to be rather paranoid attitudes, and the mods would probably then find themselves being accused of victimisation.

I do sometimes wonder whether these posters are adopting extreme or bizarre views just as a game, and for the purposes of winding up the rest of us, but if so it's harmless enough and I'm sure we're all intelligent enough to ignore it when it begins to get boring.

[robbelg]

I do sometimes wonder whether these posters are adopting extreme or bizarre views just as a game, and for the purposes of winding up the rest of us, but if so it's harmless enough and I'm sure we're all intelligent enough to ignore it when it begins to get boring.

I do wish we had recs

[Lootman]

There are about half a dozen posters - I think of them as `the usual suspects' - with what might be termed as `robust' attitudes, but so long as they refrain from outright abuse I think that they should, in the interests of free expression, be allowed to have their say without unsolicited intervention from the mods.

I agree and, personally, I don't need a moderator to fight my battles. I am happy to take my chances that I can hold my own in a debate.

I also don't want the moderators changing what I write, preferring to let it stand as is. If it's challenged, I'll either admit the mistake if I am wrong, or fight my corner if I am not. If it's that bad, remove it, tell me why, and I'll re-post in a different syntax.

[kiloran]

I do sometimes wonder whether these posters are adopting extreme or bizarre views just as a game, and for the purposes of winding up the rest of us, but if so it's harmless enough and I'm sure we're all intelligent enough to ignore it when it begins to get boring.

Perhaps Donald Trump has multiple accounts on Lemon Fool?

--kiloran

[Gaggsy]

I didn't bother reporting it as I felt the response said more about the author than I could have got away with!

Great response. Not all would have your magnanimous attitude!

There are about half a dozen posters - I think of them as `the usual suspects' - with what might be termed as `robust' attitudes

Having never really visited LoST on TMF - my landing page was 'my favourites' boards - these robust attitudes must have passed me by, although I'm sure they were always there being aired on that board. My current method of viewing the boards is to click on 'New posts' in the 'Quick links' dropdown, so this tyoe of thing is not so easily avoided - especially when they spill over into the Snug!

Having thought about it again, I was a little uncomfortable with this 'Fixed it for you' device. But I think you're right CK. Ignore it or report it, but in any case rise above it.

[csearle]

Fixed that for you.

I find this way of communicating arrogant and hope not to to get involved in a discussion with anyone that employs it.

Chris

[Clitheroekid]

I find this way of communicating very witty and amusing, and hope to learn the subtle art of satire from the master debaters that employ it.

Fixed that for you!

[Lootman]

There are about half a dozen posters - I think of them as `the usual suspects' - with what might be termed as `robust' attitudes

Having never really visited LoST on TMF - my landing page was 'my favourites' boards - these robust attitudes must have passed me by, although I'm sure they were always there being aired on that board. My current method of viewing the boards is to click on 'New posts' in the 'Quick links' dropdown, so this tyoe of thing is not so easily avoided - especially when they spill over into the Snug!out it again, I was a little uncomfortable with this 'Fixed it for you' device. But I think you're right CK. Ignore it or report it, but in any case rise above it.

CK used the present tense in his statement so I understood him to be talking about "robust" commentary on TLF, not TMF. Like you, I never spent much time in TMF LOST although it was amusing sometimes to witness the amount of emotion and angst that people will devote to politics.

Perhaps CK meant the "Polite Discussion" TLF board which looked for a while like the son of LOST. It was closed down recently, presumably because of the load it put on moderation. Perhaps they should have instead called it the "Impolite Discussions" board and not moderated it at all?

Other than that, behaviour on TLF seems benign and mature. If the worst thing being said is "Fixed that for you", then perhaps the bigger concern is that everyone is being too polite here? It's irksome but hardly offensive.

I find this way of communicating very witty and amusing, and hope to learn the subtle art of satire from the master debaters that employ it.

Fixed that for you!

"from the master debaters WHO employ it"
Fixed that for you.

[csearle]

...and I chuckled. Fell for that didn't I.
C.

[melonfool]

Perhaps CK meant the "Polite Discussion" TLF board which looked for a while like the son of LOST. It was closed down recently, presumably because of the load it put on moderation. Perhaps they should have instead called it the "Impolite Discussions" board and not moderated it at all?

There is no need to 'presume' as to why it has been closed, there is a perfectly comprehensive punned post on the board explaining why and it makes sense that people read that rather than make up stories.

I don't think a discussion about how any board is (or is not) moderated is necessary.

Mel

[Lootman]

Perhaps CK meant the "Polite Discussion" TLF board which looked for a while like the son of LOST. It was closed down recently, presumably because of the load it put on moderation. Perhaps they should have instead called it the "Impolite Discussions" board and not moderated it at all?

There is no need to 'presume' as to why it has been closed, there is a perfectly comprehensive punned post on the board explaining why and it makes sense that people read that rather than make up stories.

I don't think a discussion about how any board is (or is not) moderated is necessary.

Punned post? Don't understand.

CK made a comment about how he felt moderation should operate here and I agreed with him. Whether such comments are "necessary" doesn't enter into it.