Page 1 of 2
New Rule Discussion: Misquoting
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:18 pm
by smooshable
Section 5d
Misquoting
Misquoting other users in order to deceive or otherwise harm them or the community is not permitted on the SGW forums.
Consequence:
The offending user will be given one warning point.
Re: New Rule Discussion: Misquoting
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:04 pm
by makelovenotwar
How does the warning point system work?
Re: New Rule Discussion: Misquoting
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:17 pm
by smooshable
makelovenotwar wrote:How does the warning point system work?
It is set out in section 2 of the SGW guidelines which can be found
here.
Re: New Rule Discussion: Misquoting
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:23 pm
by Solus
misquoting is often quite amusing in the spam area if used within rules and doesnt mean to deceive. is this already accounted for in this change seeing as it isnt specifically deception?
Re: New Rule Discussion: Misquoting
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:08 pm
by smooshable
.:SOULLESS:. wrote:misquoting is often quite amusing in the spam area if used within rules and doesnt mean to deceive. is this already accounted for in this change seeing as it isnt specifically deception?
Yes, that's one of the reasons we didn't simply say 'no missquoting' - we were told that in the spam forums it's a common pass time and we do not wish to infringe upon that. This rule is to stop people from claiming one person said something to try and create a war or ridicule etc.
Re: New Rule Discussion: Misquoting
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:20 pm
by Fallout
finally
Re: New Rule Discussion: Misquoting
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:19 pm
by Solus
smooshable wrote:.:SOULLESS:. wrote:misquoting is often quite amusing in the spam area if used within rules and doesnt mean to deceive. is this already accounted for in this change seeing as it isnt specifically deception?
Yes, that's one of the reasons we didn't simply say 'no missquoting' - we were told that in the spam forums it's a common pass time and we do not wish to infringe upon that. This rule is to stop people from claiming one person said something to try and create a war or ridicule etc.
Okay, thank you for the clarification.
Re: New Rule Discussion: Misquoting
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:48 pm
by geisha
Don't like the idea. Generally allowing misquoting but warning people for it if someone thinks it was used in a condescending or insulting way leaves way too much room for interpretations and therefore bias.
Besides if whatever someone changes a quote to is really that bad, then the content itself is against the rules so I don't see what you need a new rule for. The existing rules should cover that.
Re: New Rule Discussion: Misquoting
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:00 am
by thaltek
geisha wrote:I might not like the idea. Generally allowing flatus but warning people for it if someone smells it was used in an unusual or insulting way leaves way too much room for eating cabbage, broccoli and therefore really bad gas.
Besides if whatever someone changes a quote to is really that bad, then the content itself would require one to hold his/her nose so I don't see what you need a new rule for. The existing rules should cover that. Did I mention that i really love Calculus!!! like zomg!!!
i love calculus too!!!
Re: New Rule Discussion: Misquoting
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:22 pm
by XTKiller
I like this rule. Is there anything in the rule already about it?
Re: New Rule Discussion: Misquoting
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:45 pm
by thaltek
Jack wrote:hamburgler wrote:thats not chest hair,those are carpet samples stapled to my chest, sexy isn't it...
psi kaya trhist wrote:where is zekky chan?
&~psi kiyak three~&
Re: New Rule Discussion: Misquoting
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:05 pm
by Zeratul
try not to misquote that much in this thread... keep it on topic...
(before you try stating that misquoting is the topic, we'll say that the topic is discussing a rule against misquoting!)
Re: New Rule Discussion: Misquoting
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:22 pm
by The Doctor
geisha wrote:Besides if whatever someone changes a quote to is really that bad, then the content itself is against the rules so I don't see what you need a new rule for. The existing rules should cover that.
Haz Original Post wrote: <insert name> is a lovely person.
Haz Misquoted Post wrote: <insert name> is not a lovely person. <insert name> said that <insert alliance here> are completely crap and are scared to go to war with <insert second alliance here>. <Alliance 1> should mass <Alliance 2>.
Not against the rules...but can still cause harm.
Re: New Rule Discussion: Misquoting
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:36 pm
by Nimras
TBH misquoting should be a rule because it can cause harm or misunderstanding big times. If you quote you quote it as it was writen. But taking only the portion you need in the text i c no problem as long it is the full part not just some again thats misquoting.
Re: New Rule Discussion: Misquoting
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:51 pm
by Nimras
Jack wrote:Nimras wrote:TBH misquoting should be a rule because it can cause harm or misunderstanding big times. If you quote you quote it as it was writen. But taking only the portion you need in the text i c no problem as long it is the full part not just some again thats misquoting.
But again, if say you were to try and misquote one of my earlier posts, I could just point at it and call you out on your lie. Making you look like a fool, and hurting you more then me. So then why the need for the rule?
Lol m8 tbh misquoting is disrespectfull and some apparently dont know how to show respect which is why we have rules because not all know respect or good behavour.