StarGateWars Forums

Zeratul wrote:controlling it would be too hard...

besides, doesnt look like many people here mind it... and for spamming purposes, it is excellent...

For spamming purposes, it is hilarious. It is a bit annoying in war threads, but c'est la vie. If people resort to that kind of tactic, then it makes them look worse in the long run, at least to those who actually read the whole thread. Plus it makes it more fun to mass them

Now excuse me while I misquote some people...muhwahahahahahaha

Tetrismonkey wrote:

REK wrote:

Auriel wrote:

Tetrismonkey wrote:

Thakallus wrote:

starry~* wrote:

Almost38 wrote:

Auriel wrote:

Jack wrote:Memneto is crying about Tetris

REK wrote:
Math is awesome .

That makes perfect sense

it's better than life itself

No way, it's way better than just that

Mathlord, the interpreter of math, is my GOD

You say that a lot, don't you?

Clearly

Math is the one and only god

Wolf359 wrote:This topic is complete spam and misquoting isnt bad.

fixed.

_of War wrote:

Wolf359 wrote:Anyone who mis-quotes me is getting banned!

/mis-quotes Wolf359

Uh oh someone's getting banned...Owned. .

Jack wrote:

Auriel wrote:

Jack wrote:I'd really like to know why people don't come up with more interesting complaints, this isn't what I signed up for.

I worship you Jack, your my god, and the love of my life.

Yea yea misquotes are easy to do stuff but they prove nothing since they are total made up
I can do some too

Jack wrote:

Psi Kiya Trist wrote:*removes jack's hands*

~_+Psi Kiya Trist+_~

You feelin a bit jealous too? Damn I'm not alone then! Let's go together after Apophis, he must pay!

haha


search.php?keywords=sweetheart&terms=all&author=&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search


Looks like I make it since we are on it in misquotes...

Do it, its amuseing, as long as it isnt used for a malicious reason (obviously everyone has common sense) So its fine with me.

E.g.

jack wrote:Buck Smellz

That wasnt what jack actually said in this thread, but in a comical mannor and taken as such, theres nothing wrong with it.

WOooot misquoteing FTW!

Now, if your talking about msn logs etc, things that cannot be proven, should not be allowed.

agreed

buck wrote:Do it, its amuseing, as long as it isnt used for a malicious reason (obviously everyone has common sense) So its fine with me.

E.g.

jack wrote:Buck Smellz

That wasnt what jack actually said in this thread, but in a comical mannor and taken as such, theres nothing wrong with it.

WOooot misquoteing FTW!

Now, if your talking about msn logs etc, things that cannot be proven, should not be allowed.

Well this is the point in a nutshell. What if the misquote is done malicously? or as an attempt to discredit someone or try to get them banned?

I don't mind good natured fun, but when a person is offended by a intentional, well placed misquote, should they be allowed to file a complaint and the athority to change or delete the misquote given to the mod to do so.

Thats the point of this topic.

There is no real fine line I suppose between good fun and malicious...it's all based on people's perspectives on issues. Some are offended more by certain things than others. I mean of course if someone is trying to do you harm through misquoting, then I can understand a complaint being filed; however, it still needs to be up to the disgression of the mods over what is acceptable and what isn't.

Lore wrote:

buck wrote:Do it, its amuseing, as long as it isnt used for a malicious reason (obviously everyone has common sense) So its fine with me.

E.g.

jack wrote:Buck Smellz

That wasnt what jack actually said in this thread, but in a comical mannor and taken as such, theres nothing wrong with it.

WOooot misquoteing FTW!

Now, if your talking about msn logs etc, things that cannot be proven, should not be allowed.

Well this is the point in a nutshell. What if the misquote is done malicously? or as an attempt to discredit someone or try to get them banned?

I don't mind good natured fun, but when a person is offended by a intentional, well placed misquote, should they be allowed to file a complaint and the athority to change or delete the misquote given to the mad to do so.

Thats the point of this topic.

The thing is lore, it's usually easy enough to find the real post (unless it got deleted or something). Granted, it causes some un-necessary controversy, but it's easy enough to wrap up.

Perhaps malicious misquoting should be a bannable offense?.. at least merit a warning.

Very few things should be immediate banning, but warnings possibly.


This topic was started because someone was offended by a direct intentional misquote. The situation corrected itsself, but I asked Jack about it and this thread was born.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this because I'm not tracking back through the spam but the one time misquoting can be bad is if the person you're misquoting has edited their last post already....

Someone looking at the topic will see the "so and so has edited their post 1 time" and so assume that the misquote is what it originally said....

wow hold on i thought miscoding meant, quoting sum1 and changin wat they have wrtien.. does miscoding mean like my sigg.. that that mean i cant quote and put these in my sigg.. i didnt change anything just quoted and put it in my sigg.

misquoting is quoting someone, but changing the text inside, so the meaning is different...