So it's okay to reprint attacks?
06-25-03, 03:13 PM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: PA
Posts: 4,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it's okay to reprint attacks?
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...5&pagenumber=2
I admit I attacked with my original comment, and was duly warned. But does anyone now have the right to go back and quote me anytime they want to?
FS
I admit I attacked with my original comment, and was duly warned. But does anyone now have the right to go back and quote me anytime they want to?
FS
06-25-03, 03:30 PM
#2
DVD Talk Hero
I think the answer is yes. If you are getting stalked by someone that is harassing you, that would not be cool. But it seems that one thing about a forum, anything you post can come back to you later. I do not see how that would violate the rules of personal attacks. Is there some other rule that the quoting would violate?
06-25-03, 03:35 PM
#3
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: PA
Posts: 4,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if an attack is in violation in the first place, which mine was declared to be, why would reprinting the exact same words be ok? So if I wanted to attack someone, I could just find someone ELSE who has attacked that person and reprint their quotes?
FS
FS
06-25-03, 03:42 PM
#5
DVD Talk Hero
You requested that name-calling be avoided citing an example that was not name-calling. He responded with an explanation of why it isn't name-calling, and then gave an example of what <I>is</I> name-calling that you would be sure to understand. I don't see the problem. As noted, the natural consequence of posting on a forum is that your comments are on record. If you don't want something you've posted to come up again later, perhaps you may want to think more carefully about what you post. I know I should.
das
06-25-03, 03:42 PM
#6
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: PA
Posts: 4,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, just trying to get a clear understanding on when it's okay to post other people's material that mods have declared to be in violation of the rules of the board, that's all!
FS
FS
06-25-03, 03:45 PM
#7
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: PA
Posts: 4,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by das Monkey
You requested that name-calling be avoided citing an example that was not name-calling. He responded with an explanation of why it isn't name-calling, and then gave an example of what <I>is</I> name-calling that you would be sure to understand. I don't see the problem. As noted, the natural consequence of posting on a forum is that your comments are on record. If you don't want something you've posted to come up again later, perhaps you may want to think more carefully about what you post. I know I should.
das
You requested that name-calling be avoided citing an example that was not name-calling. He responded with an explanation of why it isn't name-calling, and then gave an example of what <I>is</I> name-calling that you would be sure to understand. I don't see the problem. As noted, the natural consequence of posting on a forum is that your comments are on record. If you don't want something you've posted to come up again later, perhaps you may want to think more carefully about what you post. I know I should.
das
I now know it's fair game to re-bring up a statement that have already been declared inappropriate by a mod, even if it is to prove a point.FS
06-25-03, 03:46 PM
#8
DVD Talk Hero
If I understand the rules correctly, aside from certain inherently inflammatory words that are censored by the software, words themselves do not constitute a violation; it's their intent. If the intent is to attack, that's against the rules. If the intent is to cite an example of what is and what is not an attack, I'm assuming that is not against the rules. Your post was clearly the former; his was clearly the latter.
das
das
06-25-03, 03:48 PM
#9
DVD Talk Hero
Here is a repeat of the forum rules. No personal attacks.
Now, the one thing is, we have many people claiming they have been mortally wounded and in reviewing the posts, the attack is just not there. It's someone being disagreed with or the content of their post being attacked.
Now, the one thing is, we have many people claiming they have been mortally wounded and in reviewing the posts, the attack is just not there. It's someone being disagreed with or the content of their post being attacked.
06-25-03, 03:50 PM
#10
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: PA
Posts: 4,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by das Monkey
If I understand the rules correctly, aside from certain inherently inflammatory words that are censored by the software, words themselves do not constitute a violation; it's their intent. If the intent is to attack, that's against the rules. If the intent is to cite an example of what is and what is not an attack, I'm assuming that is not against the rules. Your post was clearly the former; his was clearly the latter.
das
If I understand the rules correctly, aside from certain inherently inflammatory words that are censored by the software, words themselves do not constitute a violation; it's their intent. If the intent is to attack, that's against the rules. If the intent is to cite an example of what is and what is not an attack, I'm assuming that is not against the rules. Your post was clearly the former; his was clearly the latter.
das
FS
06-25-03, 03:51 PM
#11
Moderator
A lot of times when somebody sees a post that they perceive as a personal attack against themselves they will quote it to preserve the evidence in case the attacker tries to cover his tracks by going back and editing the post.
All hail RandyC and the other mods for doing such a great job!
All hail RandyC and the other mods for doing such a great job!
Last edited by Groucho; 06-26-03 at 03:09 PM.
06-26-03, 11:39 AM
#12
Retired
I could see a parallel between quoting attacks and other things that were deleted by mods and discussing banned members I suppose.
Most of the times I see a mod edit an attack or other innappropriate message they usually edit the posts quoting it as well. This should be standard practice IMO, though obviously the Mods can't catch all of it.
Skimming through that thread, I did't notice any mod edited posts, so this wouldn't apply in this case. If the mod leaves the text, or the member deletes it themselves, then I say it's fair game to quote.
Only when the mods delete the text themselves (indicating that it's highly against the rules) should all quotes of it be removed as well IMO.
I agree with Groucho that some may quote an attack to preserve it, but ideally the best thing to do is to use the "report this post to a moderator" link and cut and paste the offensive text in the message.
Most of the times I see a mod edit an attack or other innappropriate message they usually edit the posts quoting it as well. This should be standard practice IMO, though obviously the Mods can't catch all of it.
Skimming through that thread, I did't notice any mod edited posts, so this wouldn't apply in this case. If the mod leaves the text, or the member deletes it themselves, then I say it's fair game to quote.
Only when the mods delete the text themselves (indicating that it's highly against the rules) should all quotes of it be removed as well IMO.
I agree with Groucho that some may quote an attack to preserve it, but ideally the best thing to do is to use the "report this post to a moderator" link and cut and paste the offensive text in the message.
06-26-03, 02:04 PM
#13
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by Groucho
A lot of times when somebody sees a post that they perceive as a personal attack against themselves they will quote it to preserve the evidence in case the attacker tries to cover his tracks by going back and editing the post.
Furthermore, RandyC is an idiot. I hate him and think he's a weenie
A lot of times when somebody sees a post that they perceive as a personal attack against themselves they will quote it to preserve the evidence in case the attacker tries to cover his tracks by going back and editing the post.
Furthermore, RandyC is an idiot. I hate him and think he's a weenie
06-26-03, 02:35 PM
#14
DVD Talk Hero
Josh, I agree. If the post was deleted, as I tend to do so as quell further retaliation, it would be bad to quote it then.
Note, not to beat a dead horse, there was no one really offensive post. The warning in the original thread was meant to say "whoa bucko, that is a bit out of line."
